Sandwich composite structures (SWCs) are extensively used in structural, aerospace, marine, and automotive applications due to their high specific stiffness and specific strength, along with superior energy absorption capabilities. The ability to integrate diverse materials and geometric configurations enables the development of tailored, multifunctional engineering systems. This review examines the influence of geometric design parameters on the energy absorption (EA) response and overall mechanical performance of SWCs. Key parameters identified from the literature include core density, core thickness, number of core layers, foam-filled versus unfilled cores, cell size, and inter-core spacing. The selection of suitable core materials, combined with optimal core topology, is shown to significantly govern the synergistic structural behavior of SWCs. A comprehensive comparison of various core architectures—such as honeycomb (HC), modified honeycomb, resin-impregnated honeycomb, foam, corrugated, lattice, auxetic, and bio-inspired configurations—is presented, emphasizing the relative advantages and challenges. Furthermore, the effects of geometric variations, loading conditions, and material density on impact performance are systematically discussed. The findings provide consolidated insights and design guidelines for the development of high-performance SWCs in advanced engineering applications.
Al-KhazrajiMS. Review on impact, crushing response and applications of re-entrant core sandwich structures. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol2024; 96(2): 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeat-05-2023-0122
2.
TarlochanF. Sandwich structures for energy absorption applications: a review. Materials2021; 14(16): 4731. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164731
3.
XiongJDuYMousanezhadD, et al.Sandwich structures with prismatic and foam cores: a review. Adv Eng Mater2019; 21(1): 1800036. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201800036
4.
HwalahSMHadi ObeidHZuheir FadhelE. Study different core types of sandwich plate on the dynamic response under impact loading. J Eng Sci Technol2020; 15(4): 2764–2780.
5.
BozkurtI. Effect of geometric configurations and curvature angle of corrugated sandwich structures on impact behavior. Polym Compos2025; 46(2): 1662–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.29064
MirzaeiJZareiHRKhodamoradiMK. Experimental analysis of energy absorption characteristics in composite sandwich structures with 3D-printed honeycomb core under quasi-static compression. J Thermoplast Compos Mater2025; 38(10): 3891.
8.
FlorenceATonyBJARamrajiK. Tailoring of mechanical, thermal and vibration behaviour of hybrid fibre with core honeycomb energy-absorbing materials reinforced polymer sandwich laminates. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part E J Process Mech Eng2025; 239(4): 1857–1865. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544089231189609
9.
KomorekAPrzybyłekPSzczepaniakR, et al.The influence of low-energy impact loads on the properties of the sandwich composite with a foam core. Polymers2022; 14(8): 1566. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14081566
10.
HichemBAbdelhakBRebaiB, et al.Mechanical behavior analysis of sandwich composite structures with different core geometries under three-point bending. Stud Eng Exact Sci2024; 5(2): e9923. https://doi.org/10.54021/seesv5n2-416
11.
WuJChenXZhuH, et al.Meta-honeycomb sandwich tubes: designing, manufacturing, and crashworthiness performance. Compos Sci Technol2023; 240: 110096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2023.110096
12.
ShiSChengGChenB, et al.Effect of an S-shaped reinforced core on the compression properties of composite honeycomb sandwich panel and tube structures. Thin-Walled Struct2023; 187: 110732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2023.110732
13.
ReyesG. Mechanical behavior of thermoplastic FML-reinforced sandwich panels using an aluminum foam core: experiments and modeling. J Sandw Struct Mater2010; 12(1): 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636209103287
14.
ArunkumarMPPitchaimaniJGangadharanKV, et al.Sound transmission loss characteristics of sandwich aircraft panels: influence of nature of core. J Sandw Struct Mater2017; 19(1): 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636216652580
15.
GriškevičiusPZeleniakienėDLeišisV, et al.Experimental and numerical study of impact energy absorption of safety important honeycomb core sandwich structures. Mater Sci2010; 16(2): 119–123.
16.
FengJFuJShangC, et al.Sandwich panel design and performance optimization based on triply periodic minimal surfaces. Comput Aided Des2019; 115: 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2019.06.007
AbdaliMHojjatiM. Compression and bending performance of thermoplastic corrugated sandwich panels with recycled PET foam. J Sandw Struct Mater2025; 28: 413.
19.
Al-ShamaryAKJKarakuzuRÖzdemirO. Low-velocity impact response of sandwich composites with different foam core configurations. J Sandw Struct Mater2016; 18(6): 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636216653267
20.
LoganathanSBKambada ShivanandH. Effect of core thickness and core density on low velocity impact behavior of sandwich panels with PU foam core. J Miner Mater Char Eng2015; 3(03): 164–170. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmmce.2015.33019
21.
MozafariHMolatefiHCrupiV, et al.In plane compressive response and crushing of foam filled aluminum honeycombs. J Compos Mater2015; 49(26): 3215–3228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998314561069
22.
RostamiyanYNorouziH. Flatwise compression strength and energy absorption of polyurethane foam-filled lattice core sandwich panels. Strength Mater2016; 48(6): 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11223-017-9827-y
23.
KumarSJASabeel AhmedK. Compression behavior and energy absorption capacity of stiffened syntactic foam core sandwich composites. J Reinforc Plast Compos2013; 32(18): 1370–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684413492867
24.
PeysayyarRTaghipoorHDamghani NouriM. Sandwich panel behavior under low-velocity impact with polyurethane core. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L2024; 238(7): 1311–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207231223490
25.
Bozkurtİ. Investigation of compressive strength and energy absorption of cylinder corrugated sandwich structures with different geometric configurations. Fırat Univ J Exp Comput Eng2025; 4(1): 115–135. https://doi.org/10.62520/fujece.1516879
26.
VahidimaneshBGazorMSFarrokhabadiA. Experimental analysis of quasi‐static indentation in composite sandwich multilayers with corrugated core. Polym Compos2025; 46(1): 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.28981
27.
Bozkurtİ. Investigation of impact performance of cylinder corrugated sandwich structures with different geometric configurations. Konya J Eng Sci2024; 12(4): 971–991. https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.1524604
28.
XiangXShaoDZhangX, et al.Sandwich structures with tapered tubes as core: a quasi-static investigation. Def Technol2024; 33: 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2023.07.011
29.
TaghipoorHSefidiM. Energy absorption of foam-filled corrugated core sandwich panels under quasi-static loading. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L2023; 237(1): 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207221110483
30.
Jamal-OmidiMZabihpoorMVaeziM, et al.Numerical investigation on the effect of composite corrugated cores in lightweight sandwich panels under planar impact loading. International Journal of Integrated Engineering2022; 14(6): 63–76. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2022.14.06.007
31.
ZanganaSEpaarachchiJFerdousW, et al.Behaviour of continuous fibre composite sandwich core under low-velocity impact. Thin-Walled Struct2021; 158: 107157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.107157
32.
TunayMDenizCUKazelD. Experimental investigation on crashworthiness behaviors of 3D‐Printed cellular composite sandwich structures. Polym Compos2025; 46: 14446.
33.
AlomarahADalfiHAl-ObaidiA, et al.Experimental and numerical study on failure mechanisms of sandwich composite structure: effect of auxetic core. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L2025: Onlinefirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207251389622
34.
NovakNStarˇceviˇcLVesenjakM, et al.Blast response study of the sandwich composite panels with 3D chiral auxetic core. Compos Struct2019; 210: 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.050
35.
XiaFDurandetYTanPJ, et al.Three-point bending performance of sandwich panels with various types of cores. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 179: 109723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.109723
36.
TürkoğluİKKasımHYazıcıM. Experimental investigation of 3D-printed auxetic core sandwich structures under quasi-static and dynamic compression and bending loads. Int J Prot Struct2023; 14(1): 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/20414196221079366
37.
SharmaDHiremathSS. Additively manufactured mechanical metamaterials based on triply periodic minimal surfaces: performance, challenges, and application. Mech Adv Mater Struct2022; 29: 5077–5107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2021.1948151
38.
Nguyen-XuanHTranKQThaiCH, et al.Modelling of functionally graded triply periodic minimal surface (FG-TPMS) plates. Compos Struct2023; 315: 116981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116981
39.
Abou-AliAMAl-KetanORowshanR, et al.Mechanical response of 3D printed bending-dominated ligament-based triply periodic cellular polymeric solids. J Mater Eng Perform2019; 28: 2316–2326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-019-03982-8
40.
FashanuORangapuramMAbutunisA, et al.Mechanical performance of sandwich composites with additively manufactured triply periodic minimal surface cellular structured core. J Sandw Struct Mater2022; 24: 1133–1151. https://doi.org/10.1177/10996362211037012
41.
LanTPengCFoxK, et al.Triply periodic minimal surfaces lattice structures: functional graded and hybrid designs for engineering applications. Mater Sci Addit Manuf2023; 2: 1753. https://doi.org/10.36922/msam.1753
42.
Al-KetanOLeeDWRowshanR, et al.Functionally graded and multi-morphology sheet TPMS lattices: design, manufacturing, and mechanical properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 102: 103520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103520
43.
Nguyen-VanVLiZDasN, et al.An innovative approach to developing low-carbon cementitious composites using TPMS-based geometric design. Mater Struct2026; 59(2): 94. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-026-02984-y
44.
ZhangLHuZWangMY, et al.Hierarchical sheet triply periodic minimal surface lattices: design, geometric and mechanical performance. Mater Des2021; 209: 109931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109931
45.
LiZChenWBinH, et al.Recent advances in hybrid lattice-cored sandwiches for enhanced multifunctional performance. Extreme Mech Lett2017; 10: 58–69.
46.
LamLChenWHaoH, et al.Crushing behaviour of corrugated tilted honeycomb core inspired by plant stem. Thin-Walled Struct2023; 188: 110852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2023.110852
47.
ZhaoXWeiLWenD, et al.Bending response and energy absorption of sandwich beams with novel auxetic honeycomb core. Eng Struct2021; 247: 113204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113204
48.
FarrokhabadiATaghizadehSAMadadiH, et al.Experimental and numerical analysis of novel multi-layer sandwich panels under three-point bending load. Compos Struct2020; 250: 112631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112631
49.
TaghizadehSANaghdinasabMMadadiH, et al.Investigation of novel multi-layer sandwich panels under quasi-static indentation loading using experimental and numerical analyses. Thin-Walled Struct2021; 160: 107326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.107326
50.
GohGDNeoSJCDikshitV, et al.Quasi-static indentation and sound-absorbing properties of 3D printed sandwich core panels. J Sandw Struct Mater2022; 24(2): 1206–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/10996362211037015
51.
CharkaouiAHassanNMBahrounZ. Enhancing mechanical properties of cellular core sandwich panels: a review of topological parameters and design improvements. Mater Res Express2023; 10(10): 102001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/acfb60
BiGJYinJPWangZJ, et al.Impact resistance analysis of a composite double-layer honeycomb sandwich structure. Strength Mater2021; 53(1): 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11223-021-00268-0
55.
FanJLiPGuoW, et al.Experimental investigation on the low-velocity impact response of tandem Nomex honeycomb sandwich panels. Polymers2023; 15(2): 456. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15020456
56.
WangHGuoJZhangG, et al.Dynamic responses and interactive failure mechanisms of carbon fiber composite face sheets/double-layer corrugated core sandwich structures under low-velocity impacts loading. J Compos Mater2024; 58(14): 1695–1713. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219983241246109
57.
KılıçaslanCOdacıIKGüdenM. Single-and double-layer aluminum corrugated core sandwiches under quasi-static and dynamic loadings. J Sandw Struct Mater2016; 18(6): 667–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636215603692
58.
SefidiMTaghipoorHNouriMD. Experimental crashworthiness analysis of corrugated-core sandwich panels under impact loading. Ships Offshore Struct2024; 19(12): 2190–2203. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2024.2329864
PanXZhangJ. Numerical study on impact resistance of double-layer aluminum foam curved sandwich plates. Mater Res Express2019; 6(4): 046556. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/aafef8
61.
ZhangWLiRYangQ, et al.Impact resistance of a fiber metal laminate skin bio-inspired composite sandwich panel with a rubber and foam dual core. Materials2023; 16(1): 453. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010453
62.
LvHShiSChenB, et al.Low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich structure with grid–honeycomb hybrid core. Int J Mech Sci2023; 246: 108149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108149
63.
ZhangYYinFMaJ. Experimental and numerical analysis of the impact resistance of polyurethane foam aluminum-concrete sandwich structures. Buildings2024; 14(11): 3573. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113573
64.
PanXChenLLiuH, et al.Experimental and numerical study on the low-velocity impact response of thermoplastic composite corrugated sandwich panels. J Sandw Struct Mater2022; 24(4): 1828–1846. https://doi.org/10.1177/10996362221100225
65.
HeimbsSCichoszJKlausM, et al.Sandwich structures with textile-reinforced composite foldcores under impact loads. Compos Struct2010; 92(6): 1485–1497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.001
66.
DuanYZhanZZouT, et al.Low-velocity impact resistance of double-layer folded sandwich structure. Machines2022; 10(8): 665. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10080665
67.
HeimbsS. Fold core sandwich structures and their impact behaviour: an overview. In: Dynamic failure of composite and sandwich structures. Springer, 2012, pp. 491–544.
68.
TomblinJLacyTSmithB, et al.Review of damage tolerance for composite sandwich airframe structures. No. DOTFAAAR9949. 1999.
69.
RevanthVKumarNKRajeshwariC, et al.Analysis of sandwich composite subjected to impact loading for enhanced energy absorption. J Phys Conf2024; 2856(1): 012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2856/1/012019
70.
ZhangWHuangZ. Experimental study on a novel sandwich panel under repeated impact loads. In: Proceedings of The 17th East Asian-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, 2022: EASEC-17, Singapore. Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 236–246.
71.
OuaddayRMaroueneAMoradaG, et al.Experimental and numerical investigation on the impact behavior of dual-core composite sandwich panels designed for hydraulic turbine applications. Compos Struct2018; 185: 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.007
72.
KhaireNTiwariGRathodS, et al.Perforation and energy dissipation behaviour of honeycomb core cylindrical sandwich shell subjected to conical shape projectile at high velocity impact. Thin-Walled Struct2022; 171: 108724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108724
73.
Charekhli-InanlloMMohammadimehrM. The effect of various shape core materials by FDM on low velocity impact behavior of a sandwich composite plate. Eng Struct2023; 294: 116721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116721
74.
GhateNGoelMD. Influence of core topology on blast mitigation application of multi-layered honeycomb core sandwich panel. Mater Today Commun2023; 36: 106531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.106531
75.
San HaNLeeT-UMaJ, et al.Energy absorption of a bio-inspired cylindrical sandwich structure. Thin-Walled Struct2024; 195: 111378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2023.111378
76.
AlAhmedYSHassanNMBahrounZ. Significance of sandwich panel’s core and design on its impact resistance under blast load. J Compos Sci2023; 7(2): 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7020044
77.
RangapuramMDasariSKNewkirkJW, et al.Performance evaluation of composite sandwich structures with additively manufactured aluminum honeycomb cores with increased bonding surface area. Polym Compos2023; 44(9): 5357–5368. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.27493
78.
BozkurtIKamanMOAlbayrakM. Low-velocity impact behaviours of sandwiches manufactured from fully carbon fiber composite for different cell types and compression behaviours for different core types. Mater Test2023; 65(9): 1349–1372. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0024
79.
QuZLiuYNingX, et al.Crashworthiness comparison of two-dimensional cellular sandwich cores under axial compression load. Mech Res Commun2022; 124: 103900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechrescom.2022.103900
80.
ZhaoYYangZYuT, et al.Mechanical properties and energy absorption capabilities of aluminium foam sandwich structure subjected to low-velocity impact. Constr Build Mater2021; 273: 121996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121996
81.
JiangDZYangFBXingSL, et al.Dynamic response of two-core sandwich composite structures under impact. Solid State Phenom2008; 136: 115–124.
FengYQiuHGaoY, et al.Creative design for sandwich structures: a review. Int J Adv Rob Syst2020; 17(3): 1729881420921327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881420921327
84.
CaglayanCOskenIAtaalpA, et al.Impact response of shear thickening fluid filled polyurethane foam core sandwich composites. Compos Struct2020; 243: 112171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112171
85.
TanHLHeZCLiE, et al.Energy absorption characteristics of three-layered sandwich panels with graded re-entrant hierarchical honeycombs cores. Aero Sci Technol2020; 106: 106073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.106073
86.
AraújoHLeiteMRibeiroAR, et al.The effect of geometry on the flexural properties of cellular core structures. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L2019; 233(3): 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464420718805511
87.
PathipakaRKNamalaKKSunkaraN, et al.Damage characterization of sandwich composites subjected to impact loading. J Sandw Struct Mater2020; 22(7): 2125–2138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636218792717
88.
WannarongDSinghanartT. A review of sandwich composite structures with 3D printed honeycomb cores. Eng J2022; 26(6): 27–39. https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2022.26.6.27
89.
KosgeyECKannyKMwangiFM, et al.Review of crack arresters performance in sandwich structure impact response. Next Mater2026; 11: 101924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxmate.2026.101924
90.
ManaloA. Fibre reinforced polymer composites sandwich structure: recent developments and applications in civil infrastructure. Int Res J Innov Eng Sci Technol2015; 1(1): 01–08.
91.
Nguyen-VanVJieCCLaoJ, et al.Experimental and multi-scale modelling investigation of printable, low-cement engineered cementitious composites with different polyethene fibre contents. Constr Build Mater2026; 517: 145629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2026.145629
92.
KausarAAhmadIRakhaSA, et al.State-of-the-art of sandwich composite structures: manufacturing—to—high performance applications. J Compos Sci2023; 7(3): 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7030102
93.
ZhangXAnCShenZ, et al.Dynamic crushing responses of bio-inspired re-entrant auxetic honeycombs under in-plane impact loading. Mater Today Commun2020; 23: 100918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.100918
94.
BerganPGBakkenKThienelKC, et al., Analysis and design of sandwich structures made of steel and lightweight concrete. In: MotasoaresCAMartinsJACRodriguesHC, et al. (Eds.), III European Conference on Computational Mechanics. Springer Netherlands, 2006.
95.
SeoJKParkDKJoSW, et al.Experimental assessment of the structural behaviour of aluminium helideck structures under static/impact loads. Ships Offshore Struct2018; 13: 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1473745
ZhuFLuGRuanD, et al.Plastic deformation, failure and energy absorption of sandwich structures with metallic cellular cores. Int J Prot Struct2010; 1: 507–541. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.1.4.507
ZhangZLeiHXuM, et al.Out-of-plane compressive performance and energy absorption of multi-layer graded sinusoidal corrugated sandwich panels. Mater Des2019; 178: 107858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107858
100.
MaQRejabMSiregarJ, et al.A review of the recent trends on core structures and impact response of sandwich panels. J Compos Mater2021; 55: 2513–2555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998321990734
101.
DharmasenaKPQueheillaltDTWadleyHNG, et al.Dynamic compression of metallic sandwich structures during planar impulsive loading in water. Eur J Mech Solid2010; 29: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2009.05.003
102.
LiXKangRLiC, et al.Dynamic responses of ultralight all-metallic honeycomb sandwich panels under fully confined blast loading. Compos Struct2023; 311: 116791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116791
103.
ChenYLiTJiaZ, et al.3D printed hierarchical honeycombs with shape integrity under large compressive deformations. Mater Des2018; 137: 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.10.028
104.
CaoBTHouBLiYL, et al.An experimental study on the impact behavior of multilayer sandwich with corrugated cores. Int J Solid Struct2017; 109: 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.01.005
RongYLiuJLuoW, et al.Effects of geometric configurations of corrugated cores on the local impact and planar compression of sandwich panels. Compos B Eng2018; 152: 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.130
107.
ChenBJiaYNaritaF, et al.Multifunctional cellular sandwich structures with optimised core topologies for improved mechanical properties and energy harvesting performance. Compos B Eng2022; 238: 109899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109899
108.
ChengYLiuMZhangP, et al.The effects of foam filling on the dynamic response of metallic corrugated core sandwich panel under air blast loading – experimental investigations. Int J Mech Sci2018; 145: 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.07.030
109.
YueZWangXHeC, et al.Elevated shock resistance of all-metallic sandwich beams with honeycomb-supported corrugated cores. Compos B Eng2022; 242: 110102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.110102
110.
DengYZhangWZengX, et al.Experimental study of the low velocity impact behavior of hybrid sandwich panel with S-shaped fold core. Thin Walled Struct2022; 181: 110057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.110057
LarsenUDSignundOBouwstaS. Design and fabrication of compliant micromechanisms and structures with negative Poisson’s ratio. J Microelectromech Syst1997; 6: 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/84.585787
JiangFYangSQiC, et al.Blast response and multi-objective optimization of graded re-entrant circular auxetic cored sandwich panels. Compos Struct2023; 305: 116494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116494
116.
VeleaMNWennhagePLacheS. Out-of-plane effective shear elastic properties of a novel cellular core for sandwich structures. Mater Des2012; 36: 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.12.017
117.
NiCYLiYCXinFX, et al.Ballistic resistance of hybrid-cored sandwich plates: numerical and experimental assessment. Compos Appl Sci Manuf2013; 46: 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2012.07.019
118.
YungwirthCJO’ConnorJZakraysekA, et al.Explorations of hybrid sandwich panel concepts for projectile impact mitigation. J Am Ceram Soc2011; 94: s62–s75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2011.04501.x
KooistraGWDeshpandeVSWadleyHNG. Compressive behavior of age hardenable tetrahedral lattice truss structures made from aluminium. Acta Mater2004; 52: 4229–4237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2004.05.039
122.
YungwirthCJRadfordDDAronsonM, et al.Experiment assessment of the ballistic response of composite pyramidal lattice truss structures. Compos B Eng2008; 39: 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.02.029
123.
XiongJMaLWuL, et al.Fabrication and crushing behavior of low-density carbon fiber composite pyramidal truss structures. Compos Struct2010; 92: 2695–2702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.03.010
