To enhance energy absorption and ballistic resistance, a novel auxetic unit cell is incorporated into sandwich structures and evaluated in this work. Starting from a perforated design domain and tested under regulated compressive and impact loading conditions, a topology optimization technique is used to create a re-entrant braced auxetic (REBA) geometry with auxetic behavior. When compared to traditional designs, the resultant unit cell significantly improves specific energy absorption under quasi-static compression and shows a negative Poisson’s ratio. Finite element simulations confirm that the optimized core offers enhanced mechanical performance compared to conventional lattice designs. Using a hemispherical shell, the new unit cell is further incorporated into a sandwich design with many layers, mimicking the use of ballistic impact. Superior ballistic resistance and energy dissipation over conventional core designs are demonstrated by high-velocity impact simulations, highlighting the suggested structure’s potential for defensive applications. The results demonstrate how well topology-driven design works to customize cellular materials for impact loads.
PeriyasamyMSrinivasanN. A review on auxetic structures: applications, properties, classifications, finite element analysis, manufacturing methods, and selective laser melting process parameters. Results Eng2025; 28: 107660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.107660
AllenHG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. Elsevier, 2013.
5.
SahuSKSreekanthPSRReddySVK. A brief review on advanced sandwich structures with customized design core and composite face sheet. Polymers. 2022; 14(20): 4267.
6.
TarlochanF. Sandwich structures for energy absorption applications: a review. Materials (Basel)2021; 14: 08–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164731
7.
SunGChenDWangH, et al.High-velocity impact behaviour of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels with different structural configurations. Int J Impact Eng2018; 122: 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.08.007
8.
KhaireNTiwariG. Ballistic response of hemispherical sandwich shell structure against ogive-nosed projectile. Thin-Walled Struct2020; 154: 106869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.106869
BuitragoBLSantiusteCSanchez-SaezS, et al.Modelling of composite sandwich structures with honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact. Compos Struct2010; 92: 2090–2096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.10.013
11.
YahayaMRuanDLuG, et al.Response of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panels subjected to foam projectile impact – an experimental study. Int J Impact Eng2015; 75: 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.07.019
12.
NiaAAKazemiM. Experimental study of ballistic resistance of sandwich targets with aluminum face-sheet and graded foam core. J Sandw Struct Mater2018; 22: 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636218757669
13.
ArslanKGunesRApalakMK, et al.Experimental tests and numerical modeling of ballistic impact on honeycomb sandwich structures reinforced by functionally graded plates. J Compos Mater2017; 51: 4009–4028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998317695423
14.
GunesRArslanKApalakMK, et al.Ballistic performance of honeycomb sandwich structures reinforced by functionally graded face plates. J Sandw Struct Mater2017; 21: 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636216689462
15.
KoloppARivallantSBouvetC. Experimental study of sandwich structures as armour against medium-velocity impacts. Int J Impact Eng2013; 61: 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.05.007
16.
DingLGuXShenP, et al. Ballistic limit of UHMWPE composite armor under impact of ogive-nose projectile. Polymers. 2022; 14(22): 4866.
17.
SasikumarMSundareswaranV. Influence of projectile nose shape on ballistic limit and damage to glass/vinyl ester composite plates. Adv Compos Lett2011; 20: 096369351102000502. https://doi.org/10.1177/096369351102000502
18.
AnsariMMChakrabartiA. Influence of projectile nose shape and incidence angle on the ballistic perforation of laminated glass fiber composite plate. Compos Sci Technol2017; 142: 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2016.12.033
19.
AbbasiMAlavi NiaAAbolfathiM. Experimental study on the high-velocity impact behavior of sandwich structures with an emphasis on the layering effects of foam core. J Sandw Struct Mater2018; 23: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636218813412
20.
KeplerJ. Impact penetration of sandwich panels at different velocities-An experimental parameter study: part I-Parameters and results. J Sandw Struct Mater2004; 6: 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636204038217
21.
IvanezISanchez-SaezS. Numerical modelling of the low-velocity impact response of composite sandwich beams with honeycomb core. Compos Struct2013; 106: 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.025
22.
IvanezISantiusteCBarberoE, et al.Numerical modelling of foam-cored sandwich plates under high-velocity impact. Compos Struct2011; 93: 2392–2399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.03.028
23.
HouWZhuFLuG, et al.Ballistic impact experiments of metallic sandwich panels with aluminium foam core. Int J Impact Eng2010; 37: 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2010.03.006
24.
LiuCZhangYYeL. High-velocity impact responses of sandwich panels with metal fiber laminate skins and aluminium foam core. Int J Impact Eng2017; 100: 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.09.004
25.
MohamedRLawatySEl-Butch. Ballistic impact response of an aluminium sandwich panel with auxetic honeycomb core structure. The International Conference on Applied Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering2016; 17: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.21608/amme.2016.35167
26.
WalkowiakMAndersDReinickeU. Comparative numerical studies of the mechanical efficiency of sandwich-panels with different non-/auxetic prismatic and lattice cores subjected to ballistic loading. Forces in Mechanics2026; 22: 100354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finmec.2026.100354
27.
MinesRAWTsopanosSShenY, et al.Drop weight impact behaviour of sandwich panels with metallic micro lattice cores. Int J Impact Eng2013; 60: 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.04.007
28.
GeorgesHBeckerWMittelstedtC. Analytical and numerical analysis on local and global buckling of sandwich panels with strut-based lattice cores. Arch Appl Mech2024; 94: 2269–2283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-024-02636-z
29.
DahiwaleNPanigrahiSAkellaK. Numerical analyses of sandwich panels with triangular core subjected to impact loading. J Sandw Struct Mater2014; 17: 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636214565190
30.
YangLHarryssonOWestH, et al.A comparison of bending properties for cellular core sandwich panels. Mater Sci Appl2013; 4: 471–477. https://doi.org/10.4236/msa.2013.48057
31.
UthamAVWattsGMishraRR. Numerical assessment of blast performance of a sandwich structure with novel circular re-entrant star honeycomb auxetic core. J Sandw Struct Mater2025; 28: 10996362251411359–10996362251411945. https://doi.org/10.1177/10996362251411359
32.
ZhuJZhouHWangC, et al.A review of topology optimization for additive manufacturing: status and challenges. Chin J Aeronaut2021; 34(1): 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.09.020
33.
ChengFZhaoQMaoZ, et al.Mechanical response of gradient lattice structures based on topology optimization. Adv Eng Mater2024; 26: 2301887. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202301887
34.
WangXQinRChenB. Mechanical properties and energy absorption capability of a topology-optimized lattice structure manufactured via selective laser melting under axial and offset loading. Proc IME C J Mech Eng Sci2022; 236: 10221–10236. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544062221100614
35.
LinYShiWSunX, et al.Influence of density gradient on the compression of functionally graded BCC lattice structure. Materials2023; 16: 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020520
36.
ShiWLinYLiJ, et al.Mechanical response and energy absorption of 316L stainless steel body-centered-cubic functionally graded lattice structures under quasistatic compressive test. Adv Eng Mater2023; 25: 2300451. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202300451
37.
ZhangYBaiZZhangY, et al.Compression and energy absorption of wood-based reinforced 3D kagome lattice structures. J Sandw Struct Mater2024; 26: 1060–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/10996362241272808
38.
BrendonFMGomesRAPereiraJLJ, et al.High-performance design of auxetic sandwich structures: a multi-objective optimization approach. Mech Adv Mater Struct2025; 32: 1225–1240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2024.2361452
39.
BoharaRPLinforthSNguyenT, et al.Novel lightweight high-energy absorbing auxetic structures guided by topology optimisation. Int J Mech Sci2021; 211: 106793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106793
40.
JohnsonGR.A constitutive model and data for materials subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on ballistics, The Hague, 19-21 April1983, pp. 541–547.
ZhouJLiuHDearJP, et al.Comparison of different quasi-static loading conditions of additively manufactured composite hexagonal and auxetic cellular structures. Int J Mech Sci2023; 244: 108054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.108054
