Article
A 3D-Printed Honeycomb Cell Geometry Design with
Enhanced Energy Absorption under Axial and Lateral
Quasi-Static Compression Loads
Marco Menegozzo * , Andrés Cecchini, Frederick A. Just-Agosto , David Serrano Acevedo,
Orlando J. Flores Velez, Isaac Acevedo-Figueroa and Jancary De Jesús Ruiz






Citation: Menegozzo, M.; Cecchini,
A.; Just-Agosto, F.A.; Serrano
Acevedo, D.; Flores Velez, O.J.;
Acevedo-Figueroa, I.; De Jesús Ruiz, J.
A 3D-Printed Honeycomb Cell
Geometry Design with Enhanced
Energy Absorption under Axial and
Lateral Quasi-Static Compression
Loads. Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, 296–312.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
applmech3010019
Received: 16 February 2022
Accepted: 12 March 2022
Published: 14 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, 296–312. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech3010019
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, Mayaguez, PR 00681, USA;
andres.cecchini@upr.edu (A.C.); frederick.just@upr.edu (F.A.J.-A.); david.serrano@upr.edu (D.S.A.);
orlando.flores2@upr.edu (O.J.F.V.); isaac.acevedo@upr.edu (I.A.-F.); jancary.dejesus@upr.edu (J.D.J.R.)
* Correspondence: marco.menegozzo@upr.edu; Tel.: +1-787-832-4040
Abstract: This work presents an innovative honeycomb cell geometry design with enhanced in-plane
energy absorption under quasi-static lateral loads. Numerical and experimental compression tests
results under axial and lateral loads are analyzed. The proposed cell geometry was designed to
overcome the limitations posed by standard hexagonal honeycombs, which show relatively low
stiffness and energy absorption under loads that have a significant lateral component. To achieve
this, the new cell geometry was designed with internal diagonal walls to support the external walls,
increasing its stiffness and impact energy absorption in comparison with the hexagonal cell. 3D-
printed unit-cell specimens made from ABS thermoplastic material were subjected to experimental
quasi-static compression tests, in both lateral and axial directions. Energy absorption was compared
to that of the standard hexagonal cell, with the same mass and height. Finite element models were
developed and validated using experimental data. Results show that the innovative geometry
absorbs approximately 15% more energy under lateral compression, while maintaining the same
level of energy absorption of the standard hexagonal cell in the axial direction. The present study
demonstrates that the proposed cell geometry has the potential to substitute the standard hexagonal
honeycomb in applications where significant lateral loads are present.
Keywords: honeycomb; cell geometry; sandwich panels; energy absorption; lateral loads; 3D-printing
1. Introduction
In the last decades, the structural design approach used in the aerospace, naval and
automotive areas has been aiming to obtain minimum weight, and on the other hand,
maximum structural safety. To meet these two conflicting objectives, sandwich panel
honeycomb cores are widely used. The advantages offered by such structures consist
of a light weight, high strength-to-weight ratio, high stiffness-to-weight ratio and high
energy absorption capabilities [1]. Honeycomb geometries are typically built up of cells of
constant cross section, such as in the case of the standard hexagonal honeycomb. When
loaded along the direction of the cells’ axes, the hexagonal honeycomb offers high values of
energy absorption and stiffness. The mechanical energy of axial loads is absorbed by plastic
deformation of the honeycomb during the compression crushing. However, the standard
prismatic honeycomb geometry possesses limited stiffness and energy absorption when
undergoing loads that present a substantial lateral component, such as lateral compression.
Such kinds of loads represent possible scenarios that should be taken into consideration
when designing sandwich cores for structures that can experience non-axial loads due to
potential impacts with foreign objects or fatigue, such as ship hulls, aircraft fuselages and
engine cases, as well as terrestrial vehicles.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applmech
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 297

As an alternative to prismatic honeycombs, numerous lattice geometries have been

proposed and studied in the last years. These include architected and origami-inspired
structures, pre-folded thin-walled tubes, cross-chiral and hierarchical cellular structures,
to name a few. Current 3D-printing technologies allow these geometries to be manufac-
tured at a relatively high speed and low cost using different materials (e.g., thermoplastics,
thermoset resins, fiber reinforced plastics, etc.). 3D-printed specimens have been fabricated
and tested under a variety of loading conditions, including in-plane and out-of-plane
quasi-static and dynamic compression, shear, three-point bending and impact, with the
objective to characterize their mechanical behavior and structural performance. To this end,
numerous studies have been conducted in the last few years. Chen et al. [2] investigated
the in-plane compressive stiffness, energy absorption and failure modes of 3D-printed
hierarchical cellular structure. McCaw and Cuan-Urquizo [3] experimentally studied the
mechanical properties of non-planar auxetic and disrupted sinusoidal lattice structures un-
der quasi-static cyclic loading. Li et al. [4] studied the compressive behavior of 3D-printed
auxetic reinforced composites, while Townsend et al. [5] presented a new 3D-printed
thermoplastic polyurethane fold origami honeycomb design with tailored out-of-plane
energy absorption behavior. Bates et al. [6] explored the effect of grading methodologies
on the energy absorption and damping behavior of 3D-printed flexible thermoplastic
polyurethane honeycombs under quasi-static, cyclic and impact loadings. Andrew et al. [7]
experimentally investigated the in-plane and out-of-plane compression energy absorption
and piezoresistive-self-sensing performance of 3D-printed discontinuous carbon fiber-
reinforced polyetheretherketone cellular composites. Ma et al. [8] studied the performance
of a kirigami-inspired pyramid foldcore sandwich structure subjected to quasi-static out-of-
plane compression and shear loads. Wang et al. [9] investigated the mechanical response
of 3D cross-chiral structures under uniaxial compression using experiments, FE models
and theoretical analysis. Yang et al. [10] analyzed the energy absorption of 3D-printed
thin-walled tubes with pre-folded origami patterns under uniaxial loading. Li et al. [11]
determined the in-plane compression strength and energy absorption of polylactic acid
(PLA) 3D-printed wood-inspired hierarchical honeycombs under quasi-static and dynamic
loads. The effect of geometric parameters and material properties on the structural per-
formance of 3D-printed honeycombs and sandwich panels have also been investigated.
Qi et al. [12] studied the influence of structural parameters on the low-impact response
and energy absorption characteristics of ABS-like resin 3D-printed origami-inspired honey-
combs. Guo et al. [13] investigated the influence of geometric morphology on mechanical
properties, peak force, energy absorption and damage mode of 3D-printed negative Pois-
son’s ratio convex-concave honeycomb tubes under quasi-static and dynamic compression.
Zaharia et al. [14] conducted elasto-plastic FE analysis on 3D-printed lightweight ther-
moplastic sandwich structures with diamond cell honeycombs and corrugated cores to
evaluate their failure modes under compression, three-point bending and tensile test. Ba-
surto et al. [15] also studied the effect of process parameters on mechanical properties
and energy absorption of 3D-printed polyethylene terephthalate glycol honeycombs un-
der in-plane compression tests. In a similar study, Mansour et al. [16] investigated the
mechanical performance of 3D-printed second-order hierarchical ABS honeycomb struc-
tures with carbon fiber and carbon nanotube reinforcements under compression and cyclic
compression testing.
Particularly, energy absorption and failure mechanisms of 3D-printed lightweight
honeycombs under low-velocity impact loading are receiving increasing attention due to
their enormous potential for aerospace structural applications. Sarvestani et al. [17,18]
determined the significant effect of core topology and geometrical parameters on failure
mechanism and energy absorption of 3D-printed meta-sandwich structures subjected to
quasi-static three-point bending and low-velocity impact tests. They also studied the energy
absorption capability of 3D-printed PLA lightweight sandwich panels with architected
cellular cores under low-velocity impact. Özen et al. [19] also investigated the low-energy
impact response of woven CFRP sandwich composite panels with 3D-printed thermoplastic
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 298

ABS honeycomb and re-entrant cores, particularly their impact strength and energy dissi-
pation behavior. Chen et al. [20] performed a similar analysis on additive manufactured
3D re-entrant honeycombs under impact and quasi-static compression loading, in order
to determine their energy absorption capability and failure modes. Ma et al. [21] also
conducted static and impact compression analyses to study the deformation behavior and
energy absorption of composite re-entrant honeycomb cylindrical shells.
From the aforementioned studies, the following findings were observed: (1) Process
and geometric parameters can be modified to tailor the mechanical properties and structural
response of 3D-printed honeycombs, and core topology has a significant effect on energy
absorption and failure mechanisms of the structure; (2) Hierarchical and auxetic lattice
structures show superior energy absorption than conventional honeycombs, but also show
a reduction in stiffness; and (3) Even though many honeycomb and lattice geometries
have been proposed, there is not a general consensus on which is the best alternative for
crashworthiness applications.
In order to increase the impact energy absorption of 3D-printed honeycombs under
lateral loads, a new cell structure was designed with an external square shape containing
internal diagonal walls that are neither parallel nor perpendicular to the cells’ axes. The
particular orientation of the diagonal walls allows an increase of the stiffness and energy
absorption along the lateral directions, and allows the load to be transferred through al-
ternative paths, independently from the direction of the external forces acting on the cell.
The energy absorption capability of a unit cell tailored with the innovative geometry was
then compared to the standard hexagonal honeycomb cell with the same mass and height.
Both the innovative and standard cells were subjected to quasi-static compression tests,
both axially and laterally. Finite element (FE) models were developed and validated using
experimental results. The axial compression results proved that the new cell geometry
maintains the same level of energy absorption of the standard hexagonal cell, while the lat-
eral compression tests indicated that the innovative cell geometry can absorb approximately
15% more energy than the standard hexagonal one.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cell Geometry Design
The innovative cell geometry design proposed in this paper is based on the following
two requirements: (1) The need to increase the energy absorption of conventional honey-
comb structures under lateral compression; and (2) The ability to assemble multiple cells
into a compact rectangular arrangement without the necessity of cutting the panel edges,
as it occurs in the case of standard hexagonal honeycombs. To satisfy the aforementioned
requirements, the innovative cell was designed with a square cuboid external shape con-
taining internal diagonal walls, i.e., walls that lie in planes that are neither parallel nor
perpendicular to the cell axis, as depicted in Figure 1a,b. With this geometric configuration,
the cell vertical walls will transfer the vertical load, while the internal diagonal walls will
transfer the load in the in-plane direction, thus improving the energy absorption capability
observed in prismatic cells. Initially, a honeycomb geometry constituted of tetrahedral
cells was considered, but it was subsequently discarded, as it was not possible to assemble
them into the desired shape without leaving any void spaces. Therefore, the cell geom-
etry proposed in this work, which is composed of four hexahedral sub-cells that for a
parallelepiped-shaped cell, was adopted, as it represents the simplest design solution that
satisfies the two design requirements. Innovative cells with the same size can be stacked
together in two different geometric configurations (where the different patterns only differ
for the mutual orientation of the cells), as shown in Figure 1c, to form square or rectangular
honeycomb panels. Figure 2 depicts the innovative cell cross section at 25, 50 and 75 percent
of the cell height.
 Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 4
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 4

or rectangular honeycomb panels. Figure 2 depicts the innovative cell cross section at 25,
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 or 50
rectangular honeycomb
and 75 percent panels.
of the cell Figure 2 depicts the innovative cell cross section at 25,299
height.
50 and 75 percent of the cell height.

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1. 1. (a)
(a) Innovative
Innovative cell geometry with internal diagonal walls; (b) cell cross-sectional view; and
Figure
Figure
(c) two1. (a) Innovative
possible cellcell
geometric
geometry
geometry
honeycomb
with
with internal
internal diagonal
diagonal
configurations,
walls;
walls;
where the
(b)
cellcell
(b)thickness cross-sectional
cross-sectional view;
view;
of the external andand
vertical
(c)(c)
twotwo
walls
possible
possible
is twice the
geometric
geometric
thickness
honeycomb
honeycomb configurations,
configurations,
of the internal
where
where
diagonal walls
the thickness of the external vertical
(t).the thickness of the external vertical
walls
walls is twice
is twice thethe thickness
thickness of of
thethe internal
internal diagonal
diagonal walls
walls (t).(t).

Figure 2. Innovative cell cross section at 25, 50 and 75 percent of the cell height.
Figure
Figure 2. Innovative
2. Innovative cellcell cross
cross section
section at at
25,25,
50 50
andand
75 75 percent
percent of of
thethe cell
cell height.
height.
To compare
To compare the the energy
energy absorption
absorption underunder both
both an axial and lateral compressive load,
the To compare cell
innovative the energy
and the absorption
hexagonal under
standardboth anan
cell were
axial
axial and and lateral
lateral
dimensioned
compressive
compressive
in such a
load,
load,
way that
the
thethey innovative
innovative cellcell
and and the hexagonal
the hexagonal standard
standard cell cell were dimensioned
were dimensioned in and in such
suchstandard a
a way that way
that had
they the
had same height
theheight
same height and mass.
andIn In
mass. order
Into to
order design the
to design innovative
the innovative and standardhex-
they had
agonal the same
cellscells
so that they and
had mass.
thethe
same order
mass, design
the the innovative
innovative cell was and standard
dimensioned hex-first,
hexagonal
agonal cells so so
that that
they they
had had
the same same
mass, mass,
the the innovative
innovative cellcell
was was dimensioned
dimensioned first,
first,
and
and then
then the
the dimensions
dimensions of the
of standard
the standard hexagonal
hexagonal cell were
cell determined
were determinedaccordingly. The
accordingly.
and then
following the dimensions
dimensions of the
were werestandard
selected hexagonal
for thefor cell
innovative were determined
cell geometry: accordingly.
thickness The
of 1.5 mm,
The following dimensions selected the innovative cell geometry: thickness of
following
sidemm, dimensions
length were selected for the
63.5innovative cell geometry: thickness of 1.5volume
mm,
1.5 sideoflength
25.4 mm and
of 25.4 height
mm andofheight mm. Once
of 63.5 mm.theOnce
corresponding material
the corresponding material
side
was length of 25.4(13,262
calculated mm and mm height
3), theof 363.5 mm. Once the corresponding material volume
volume was calculated (13,262 mmsame ), thematerial volume
same material and mass
volume andwere
massassigned to the
were assigned
was calculated
standard (13,262
honeycomb mm
cell.
3), the same material volume and mass were assigned to the
To determine the remaining dimensions of the standard hexag-
to the standard honeycomb cell. To determine the remaining dimensions of the standard
standard
onal cell, honeycomb
the wall cell. Towas determine thea remaining dimensions andofthethe standard hexag-
hexagonal cell, thelength
wall lengthassigned
was assigned value of 13.7
a value of mm,
13.7 mm, andwall thickness
the wall was
thickness
onal cell,
obtained the wall
using length was
the following assigned
relation a value
[22] [22] of 13.7 mm, and the wall thickness was
was obtained using the following relation
obtained using the following relation [22]
𝑉 2 2𝑡
V𝑉s =22 2𝑡2t (1)
𝑉= √ 𝑙 (1)(1)
V𝑉t = √3√3 3 𝑙l

where V s and Vt represent the volume of the innovative cell (13,262√ mm3 ) and the volume
of the solid (completely filled with material) hexagonal cell (Vt = 3 3l 2 h/2), respectively.
In Equation (1), t is the cell wall thickness and l is the cell wall length. The resulting
standard hexagonal cell wall thickness was 2.5 mm. The volume fractions of the standard
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 5
where Vs and Vt represent the volume of the innovative cell (13,262 mm3) and the volume
of the solid (completely filled with material) hexagonal cell (𝑉 = 3√3𝑙 ℎ/2), respectively.
In Equation (1), t is the cell wall thickness and l is the cell wall length. The resulting stand-
where Vs and Vt represent the volume of the innovative cell (13,262 mm3) and the volume
ard hexagonal cell wall thickness was 2.5 mm. The volume fractions of the standard and
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 of the solid (completely filled with material) hexagonal cell (𝑉 = 3√3𝑙 ℎ/2), respectively. 300
innovative cells were 0.42 and 0.30, respectively. The dimensions of both cells are shown
In Equation (1), t is the cell wall thickness and l is the cell wall length. The resulting stand-
in Figure 3.
ard hexagonal cell wall thickness was 2.5 mm. The volume fractions of the standard and
innovative cells were 0.42
and innovative cellsand
were0.30, respectively.
0.42 The dimensions
and 0.30, respectively. The of both cells are
dimensions shown
of both cells are
in Figure 3.
shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Dimensions (in mm) of innovative and standard hexagonal cells specimens for testing.
Figure 3. Dimensions (in mm) of innovative and standard hexagonal cells specimens for testing.
2.2. Materials and Fabrication
Figure 3. Dimensions (in mm) of innovative and standard hexagonal cells specimens for testing.
2.2. Materials
The testand Fabrication
specimens were manufactured from white ABS (Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-
The
Styrene) test specimens
thermoplastic
2.2. Materials and Fabrication were
polymer manufactured
using a Zortraxfrom white
M300 ABS fused(Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-
filament deposition 3D
Styrene) thermoplastic
printer (Zortrax polymer
Company, using aPoland).
Olsztyn, Zortrax M300 fused filament
The isotropic deposition
bulk material 3D printer
properties of
The test specimens
(Zortrax Company,from were
Olsztyn,manufactured
Poland). Thefrom whitebulk
isotropic ABSmaterial
(Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-
properties
ABS, determined the manufacturer datasheet, were a density of 1040of ABS,
kg/m deter-
3, elastic
Styrene) thermoplastic
mined from polymer using a Zortrax M300 fused filament deposition 3D
3 elastic modulus
modulus ofthe manufacturer
2 GPa, yield strengthdatasheet,
of 25 MPawereanda density of 1040
Poisson’s ratiokg/m
of 0.3., The printing orien- of
printer2 (Zortrax
GPa, yieldCompany,
strength Olsztyn,
of 25 MPa Poland).
and The
Poisson’s isotropic
ratio of bulk
0.3. material
The properties
printing of was
orientation
tation was chosen in such a way that the cross-sectional area of the cell was seated on the
ABS, determined
chosen fromway
in such the manufacturer datasheet, were a density ofseated
1040 kg/m the,maintain
3 elastic
printing bed. aAll that the cross-sectional
specimens were printed area withofthe
the cell was
same orientation on to printing bed.
con-
modulusAll of 2 GPa,
specimens yield strength
were printed of 25 MPa
with the and
same Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The printing orien- print-
sistency. The printing parameters used in orientation to maintain
the manufacturing consistency.
process were the The
following:
tation ing
wasparameters
chosen in suchused ainway
the that the cross-sectional area ofthe
thefollowing:
cell was seated on the
filament diameter 1.75 mm,manufacturing
infill density 60%, process
layerwere
thickness 0.14 mm,filament
printingdiameter
speed 80
printing
1.75bed.
mm, All specimens
infill density were
60%, printed
layer with
thickness the
0.14same
mm, orientation
printing to
speed maintain
80 mm/s, con-
extruder
mm/s, extruder temperature 230–250 °C and bed temperature 70–110 °C. The resulting
sistency. The printing
temperature parameters
230–250 ◦ andused in the manufacturing process
◦ C. were the following:
printed specimens areCshown bedintemperature
Figure 4, in 70–110
which the The
infillresulting
printing printed
patternspecimens
can be ob-
filament
are diameter
shown in1.75 mm,
Figure 4,infill
in density
which the 60%,
infill layer thickness
printing pattern 0.14
canmm,
be printing speed 80
observed.
served.
mm/s, extruder temperature 230–250 °C and bed temperature 70–110 °C. The resulting
printed specimens are shown in Figure 4, in which the infill printing pattern can be ob-
served.

Figure4.4.(a)
Figure (a)3D-printed
3D-printedtest
testspecimens.
specimens.(b)
(b)3D-printed
3D-printedspecimens
specimensinfill
infillprinting
printingpattern.
pattern. (c)
(c) Quasi-
Quasi-
static compression testing system.
static compression testing system.
Figure 2.3.
4. (a)Experimental
3D-printed test specimens. (b) 3D-printed specimens infill printing pattern. (c) Quasi-
Setup
static compression testing system.
Quasi-static compression tests were performed on 3D-printed ABS specimens using an
MTS 810 Servo-Hydraulic Material Test System with a maximum load capacity of 200 kN
and maximum displacement of 76.2 mm (see Figure 4). The 3D-printed cells were placed
between the two circular platens and compressed at a displacement rate of 0.85 mm/min.
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 301

For the axial compression tests, the total compressive displacement was 45.7 mm, which
represents the 72% of the cell height. For the novel and hexagonal cells under lateral
compression, the total compressive displacement was 22.8 mm, which represents 82% and
87% of the novel cell wall length and hexagonal cell minimal diameter, respectively. The
loading process was recorded by a standard digital camera and the experimental force
versus displacement data was extracted from the testing machine. To obtain reliable results,
three specimens of each cell geometry and loading direction were tested.

2.4. Numerical Modeling

3D-explicit nonlinear finite element (FE) analysis of the novel honeycomb cell and
conventional hexagonal cell under quasi-static compression load was conducted using
the commercial software ANSYS Workbench with AUTODYN solver with the objective to
replicate the actual tests. The FE models consist of a single-cell honeycomb loaded in either
axial or lateral direction, as shown in Figures 5 and 6. The honeycombs were modeled using
two solid elements across the thickness and multilinear isotropic hardening material with
an elastic modulus of 1.2 GPa, yield strength of 20.5 MPa and density equal to 1040 kg/m3 .
The specimens were placed between two rigid plates and subject to a controlled vertical
deformation rate. The crushing of the honeycomb cell was accomplished by fixing the lower
plate in all directions, while the upper plate moved downward with linear velocity varying
from an initial value of zero to a final maximum value. In all cases, the crushing distance
was set to be approximately 80% of the original cell length. To balance computational time
and solution accuracy, the kinetic energy of the upper plate was maintained below 10%
of the internal energy during the simulations, so that dynamic effects can be neglected.
The interaction between the specimens and the rigid plates was modeled using frictional
contacts with equal static and dynamic coefficients of 0.05. Body self-contact based on
the penalty formulation was defined for the honeycomb cell elements. Hourglass energy
was controlled using the Flanagan-Belytschko algorithm, with a stiffness coefficient of
0.08 and a viscous coefficient of 0.1. In the case of the model corresponding to the novel
cell under lateral load, the mesh was divided in two parts at its mid-plane section. Then,
the two parts were connected together using a bonded contact with a shear stress limit of
3.4 MPa. This contact allows the interaction between the parts until it breaks at the specified
shear stress limit. The purpose of this contact was to replicate the failure of the cell at the
mid-section observed during the actual compression test. The FE model settings are listed
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 7
in Table 1. From this analysis, reaction force vs. displacement curves and absorbed energy
were obtained and compared with the corresponding experimental results.

Figure 5.
Figure FE model
5. FE model of
of novel
novel cell
cell under
under axial
axial load.
load.
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 302
Figure 5. FE model of novel cell under axial load.

Figure 6. FE model of novel cell under lateral load.

3. Results
Table 1. FE analysis settings.
Quasi-static compression tests were performed on the novel cell geometry and the
Parameter Setting Parameter Setting
conventional hexagonal cell under both axial and lateral loads. Three test specimens of
Analysis type Explicit-dynamic/quasi-static
each case scenario were manufactured and Contact
tested.type Frictionaland vali-
FE analysis was conducted
Material model dated using
Multilinear experimental
isotropic results. Experimental
hardening load
Static friction versus displacement
coeff. 0.05curves were
Elastic modulus plotted for1.2 each
GPacell geometry and loading condition. For
Dynamic friction coeff. the case corresponding
0.05 to axial
loading, energy absorption (EA) was computed using Equation (2) for a crushing distance
Yield strength 20.5 MPa Hourglass control Flanagan-Belytschko
corresponding to ⅔ the initial length (42.3 mm). In a similar fashion, the case correspond-
Poisson’s ratio ing to transverse0.3 loading was examined for Stiffness coeff. distance corresponding
a crushing 0.08 to ⅔ the
3
Density initial width
1040 (17.5
kg/mmm). The maximum reaction Viscousforce
coeff.during the crushing length
0.1 was also
determined in each case. Figure 7 shows the reaction force versus displacement of the
novel cell geometry under axial loading. The initial linear elastic response of the novel cell
3. Results
is followed by the sudden crushing of the top end of the specimen, as shown in Figure 8a.
Quasi-static compression tests were performed on the novel cell geometry and the
Then, the load increases again until the crushing of the bottom end of the specimen occurs.
conventional hexagonal cell under both axial and lateral loads. Three test specimens
After the second collapse, the reaction force experiences a slight increment, followed by a
of each case scenario were manufactured and tested. FE analysis was conducted and
validated using experimental results. Experimental load versus displacement curves were
plotted for each cell geometry and loading condition. For the case corresponding to
axial loading, energy absorption (EA) was computed using Equation (2) for a crushing
distance corresponding to 2/3 the initial length (42.3 mm). In a similar fashion, the case
corresponding to transverse loading was examined for a crushing distance corresponding
to 2/3 the initial width (17.5 mm). The maximum reaction force during the crushing length
was also determined in each case. Figure 7 shows the reaction force versus displacement
of the novel cell geometry under axial loading. The initial linear elastic response of the
novel cell is followed by the sudden crushing of the top end of the specimen, as shown
in Figure 8a. Then, the load increases again until the crushing of the bottom end of
the specimen occurs. After the second collapse, the reaction force experiences a slight
increment, followed by a small reduction. Densification approximately starts after 45 mm
of displacement. Figure 9 shows the FE analysis of the novel cell geometry under axial
load. In Figure 10, FE results are compared with experimental data showing very good
agreement. The averaged experimental absorbed energy and maximum reaction force of
the novel cell under axial load were 164.7 J and 6.0 kN, respectively. The specific energy
 small reduction. Densification approximately starts after 45 mm of displacement. Figure
9 shows the FE analysis of the novel cell geometry under axial load. In Figure 10, FE results
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 are compared with experimental data showing very good agreement. The averaged ex- 303

perimental absorbed energy and maximum reaction force of the novel cell under axial
load were 164.7 J and 6.0 kN, respectively. The specific energy absorption corresponding
to a crushing
absorption length of 42.3
corresponding tomm was 1.17
a crushing J/g, which
length of 42.3ismm
consistent
was 1.17with
J/g,the value
which observed
is consistent
in thethe
with hexagonal cell geometry
value observed loaded in the
in the hexagonal cellaxial direction.
geometry loaded in the axial direction.
Z lc
𝐸𝐴==
EA F𝐹(𝑙)𝑑𝑙
(l )dl (2)
(2)
0

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Experimental
7. Experimental load
load vs.
vs. displacement
displacement curves
curves for
for novel
novel cell
cell under
under axial
axial load.
axial load.
load.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c) (d)
(d) (e)
(e)

Figure 8. Experimental compression test of the novel cell under axial load during the different stages
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Experimental
Experimental compression
compression test
test of
of the
the novel
novel cell
cell under
under axial
axial load
load during
during the
the different 9
different stages
stages
graphed in Figure 7: (a) First collapse; (b) Second collapse (c,d) Between 20 mm and 42 mm; and
graphed
graphed in
in Figure
Figure 7:
7: (a)
(a) First
First collapse;
collapse; (b)
(b) Second
Second collapse
collapse (c,d)
(c,d) Between
Between 20
20 mm
mm and
and 42
42 mm;
mm; and
and (e)
(e)
(e) Densification.
Densification.
Densification.

Figure9.9.FEFEanalysis
Figure analysisofofdeformation
deformationprocess
processfor
forthe
thenovel
novelcell
cellunder
underaxial
axialload.
load.
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 304

Figure 9. FE analysis of deformation process for the novel cell under axial load.

Figure
Figure 10. Loadvs.
10. Load vs.displacement
displacement curves
curves forfor novel
novel cell cell
underunder
axialaxial
load:load: comparison
comparison between
between exper-
imental and FEA.
experimental and FEA.

The
Theexperimental
experimentalreaction
reactionforce
forceversus
versusdisplacement
displacement curves
curvesof of
thethe
novel
novel cellcell
geometry
geome-
under lateral
try under loading
lateral are shown
loading in Figure
are shown 11. The
in Figure 11.initial linearlinear
The initial elasticelastic
response is followed
response is fol-
by the plastic buckling of the vertical cell walls, as shown in Figure 12.
lowed by the plastic buckling of the vertical cell walls, as shown in Figure 12. ImmediatelyImmediately after
wall buckling, the cell mid-section fails by shear, which makes the reaction
after wall buckling, the cell mid-section fails by shear, which makes the reaction force force continue
to drop. This
continue failure
to drop. Thisoccurs
failureasoccurs
a resultas of the antisymmetric-buckling
a result of the antisymmetric-buckling curvature of the
curvature
vertical walls, combined
of the vertical with thewith
walls, combined stress concentration
the region within
stress concentration regionthe cell observed
within the cell ob-in
the FE model
served in the (see Figures(see
FE model 13 and 14). 13
Figures In and
this case,
14). Indensification starts after approximately
this case, densification starts after ap-
17 mm of displacement.
proximately The maximum
17 mm of displacement. Theshear stress shear
maximum at thestress
mid-section of the novelofcell
at the mid-section the
obtained by FE analysis was 17.6 MPa. Figure 15 shows good
novel cell obtained by FE analysis was 17.6 MPa. Figure 15 shows good agreement agreement between FE be-
results
tween FE andresults
experiments. The averaged
and experiments. experimental
The averaged absorbed
experimental energyenergy
absorbed and maximum
and max-
reaction force of force
imum reaction the novel
of thecell under
novel lateral
cell underload wereload
lateral 27.0were
J and27.0
4.8 kN, respectively.
J and 4.8 kN, respec-The
specific
tively. The specific energy absorption corresponding to a crushing length of 14.8 mm The
energy absorption corresponding to a crushing length of 14.8 mm was 0.19 J/g. was
performance of the new cell design under quasi-static compression
0.19 J/g. The performance of the new cell design under quasi-static compression loadingloading was compared
to
wasthat of the conventional
compared to that of thehexagonal
conventional cell.hexagonal
Experimental cell. and FE resultsand
Experimental are FE
summarized
results are
in Table 2. Figure 16 shows the experimental load versus displacement curves of the
summarized in Table 2. Figure 16 shows the experimental load versus displacement
hexagonal cell under the axial compression test. In this case, the averaged absorbed energy
curves of the hexagonal cell under the axial compression test. In this case, the averaged
and maximum reaction force were 164.7 J and 6.5 kN, respectively. The specific energy
absorbed energy and maximum reaction force were 164.7 J and 6.5 kN, respectively. The
absorption corresponding to a crushing length of 42.3 mm was 1.17 J/g; this demonstrates
specific energy absorption corresponding to a crushing length of 42.3 mm was 1.17 J/g;
that the novel cell design and the hexagonal cell have similar performance in the axial
this demonstrates that the novel cell design and the hexagonal cell have similar perfor-
direction. Experimental deformation behavior was replicated with very good agreement
mance in the axial direction. Experimental deformation behavior was replicated with very
by the FE model, as shown in Figures 17 and 18. In Figure 19, experimental load versus
good agreement by the FE model, as shown in Figures 17 and 18. In Figure 19, experi-
displacement curve is compared with FE results, showing excellent agreement. In the
mental load versus displacement curve is compared with FE results, showing excellent
lateral direction, the hexagonal cell showed an averaged energy absorption of 23.5 J and
agreement. In the lateral direction, the hexagonal cell showed an averaged energy absorp-
a maximum reaction force of 2.0 kN. The specific energy absorption, corresponding to a
tion of 23.5 J and a maximum reaction force of 2.0 kN. The specific energy absorption,
crushing length of 17.5 mm, was 0.16 J/g. Compression test results of the hexagonal cell
corresponding
along the lateral to a crushing
direction lengthin
are shown ofFigure
17.5 mm, wasspecimen
20. Test 0.16 J/g. Compression
2 experiencedtest wallresults
fractureof
which can be observed by the sudden drop in the blue curve around the 12 mm compression
length. The other two specimens did not show evidence of fracture. Experimental and
numerical deformation behaviors are shown in Figures 21 and 22, respectively. The load
versus displacement curve obtained from experimental compression test is compared with
FEA in Figure 23. The amounts of absorbed energy for the novel and hexagonal cells in
both axial and lateral directions are compared in Figure 24. Figure 25 shows a comparison
of the initial part of the experimental load versus displacement curves between the novel
and the hexagonal cell for both axial and lateral loading conditions.
 of fracture.
and Experimental
22, respectively. and numerical
The load deformationcurve
versus displacement behaviors are shown
obtained in Figures 21
of fracture. Experimental and numerical deformation behaviors are from
shownexperimental
in Figures 21
and 22, respectively.
compression test is The load
compared versus
with FEA displacement
in Figure 23. Thecurve obtained
amounts of from experimental
absorbed energy for
and 22, respectively. The load versus displacement curve obtained from experimental
compression
the novel and test is compared
hexagonal cells with
in FEA
both axialin and
Figure 23. The
lateral amounts
directions areofcompared
absorbed in energy
Figurefor
compression test is compared with FEA in Figure 23. The amounts of absorbed energy for
the
24. novel and hexagonal cells in both axial and lateral directions are compared in Figure
theFigure
novel25
andshows a comparison
hexagonal of theaxial
cells in both initial
andpart of the
lateral experimental
directions load versus
are compared dis-
in Figure
24. Figurecurves
placement 25 shows a comparison
between the novel ofandthetheinitial part ofcell
hexagonal the experimental load versus dis-
24. Figure 25 shows a comparison of the initial part of thefor both axial and
experimental lateral
load load-
versus dis-
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 placement
ing curves between the novel and the hexagonal cell for both axial and lateral load-
conditions. 305
placement curves between the novel and the hexagonal cell for both axial and lateral load-
ing conditions.
ing conditions.

Figure 11. Experimental load vs. displacement curves for novel cell under lateral load.
Figure 11. Experimental load vs. displacement curves for novel cell under lateral load.
Figure 11.
Figure 11. Experimental
Experimental load
load vs.
vs. displacement
displacement curves
curves for
for novel
novel cell
cell under
under lateral
lateral load.
load.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Figure
Figure12.
12.Experimental
Experimentalcompression
compressiontest
testofofnovel
novelcell under
cell underlateral load.
lateral (a)(a)
load. Wall buckling;
Wall (b)(b)
buckling; Mid-
Mid-
Figurefracture;
section 12. Experimental
(c) Lowercompression test of plateau;
plateau (d) Upper novel celland
under lateral load.
(e) Beginning of(a) Wall buckling; (b) Mid-
densification.
Figure 12.
section Experimental
fracture; compression
(c) Lower plateau (d) test
Upperof novel celland
plateau; under
(e)lateral load.of
Beginning (a)densification.
Wall buckling; (b) Mid-
section fracture; (c) Lower plateau (d) Upper plateau; and (e) Beginning of densification.
section fracture; (c) Lower plateau (d) Upper plateau; and (e) Beginning of densification.

Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 11

Figure 13. FE analysis of deformation process for the novel cell under lateral load.
Figure 13. FE analysis of deformation process for the novel cell under lateral load.
Figure 13. FE analysis of deformation process for the novel cell under lateral load.
Figure 13. FE analysis of deformation process for the novel cell under lateral load.

Figure
Figure 14. Shear
Shear stress
stress concentration
concentration at the mid-section of the novel cell.
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 306

Figure 14. Shear stress concentration at the mid-section of the novel cell.
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Shear
Shear stress
stress concentration
concentration at
at the
the mid-section
mid-section of
of the
the novel
novel cell.
cell.

Figure 15.
Figure 15. Load vs.
Load vs. displacement
vs.displacement curves
displacementcurves for
curvesfor novel
fornovel
novelcell under
cell underlateral load:
lateral comparison
load: between
comparison ex-
between
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Load cell under lateral load: comparison between ex-
perimentalLoad
experimental and
and
vs. displacement
FEA.
FEA.
curves for novel cell under lateral load: comparison between ex-
perimental and
perimental and FEA.
FEA.

Figure 16. Experimental load vs. displacement curves for hexagonal cell under axial load.
16. Experimental
Figure 16.
Figure 16. Experimental load
load vs.
vs. displacement
displacement curves
curves for
for hexagonal cell under
hexagonal cell
cell under axial
under axial load.
axial load.
load.

Figure 17. Experimental compression test of standard hexagonal cell under axial load.
Figure 17. Experimental
Figure Experimental compression test
test of standard
standard hexagonal cell
cell under axial
axial load.
load.
Figure 17.
17. Experimental compression
compression test of
of standard hexagonal
hexagonal cell under
under axial load.
Appl.
Appl.Mech.
Appl. Mech.2022,
Mech. 2022,3,33,FOR
2022, FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 1212
307
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 12

Figure
Figure18.
Figure 18.FE
18. FEanalysis
FE analysisof
analysis ofdeformation
of deformationprocess
deformation processfor
process forthe
for thestandard
the standardhexagonal
standard hexagonalcell
hexagonal cellunder
cell underaxial
under axialload.
axial load.
load.
Figure 18. FE analysis of deformation process for the standard hexagonal cell under axial load.

Figure
Figure19.
Figure 19.Load
19. Loadvs.
Load vs.displacement
vs. displacementcurves
displacement curvesfor
curves forhexagonal
for hexagonalcell
hexagonal cellunder
cell underaxial
under axialload:
axial load:comparison
load: comparisonbetween
comparison between
between
Figure 19. Load
experimental
experimental andvs.
and FEA.displacement curves for hexagonal cell under axial load: comparison between
FEA.
experimental and FEA.
experimental and FEA.

Figure
Figure20.
20.Experimental
Experimentalload
loadvs.
vs.displacement
displacementcurves
curvesfor
forhexagonal
hexagonalcell
cellunder
underlateral
lateralload.
load.
Figure20.
Figure 20.Experimental
Experimentalload
loadvs.
vs. displacement
displacementcurves
curvesfor
forhexagonal
hexagonalcell
cellunder
underlateral
lateralload.
load.

Figure
Figure21.
21.Experimental
Experimentalcompression
compressiontest
testofofstandard
standardhexagonal
hexagonalcell
cellunder
underlateral
lateralload.
load.
Figure 21. Experimental compression test of standard hexagonal cell under lateral load.
 Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW

Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 308

Figure 20. Experimental load vs. displacement curves for hexagonal cell under lateral load.

Figure 22. FE analysis of deformation process for the standard hexagonal cell under lateral

Appl.Mech.
Appl. Mech.2022,
2022,3,3,FOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 13
13

Figure 21.
Figure 21. Experimental
Experimental compression
compression test
test of
of standard
standardhexagonal
hexagonalcell
cellunder
underlateral
lateralload.
load.

Figure22.
Figure
Figure 22.FE
22. FEanalysis
FE analysisof
analysis ofdeformation
of deformationprocess
deformation processfor
process forthe
for thestandard
the standardhexagonal
standard hexagonalcell
hexagonal cellunder
cell underlateral
under lateralload.
lateral load.
load.

Figure 23. Load vs. displacement curves for hexagonal cell under lateral load: comparison b
experimental and FEA.

Table 2. Summary of experimental (average) and FE results. FE results are shown in parent
Energy absorption and maximum force are calculated up to a strain of 2/3.

Cell Geometry Novel Hexagonal Novel Hexagona

(Load Case) (Axial Load) (Axial Load) (Lateral Load) (Lateral Loa
Energy absorption (J) 164.7 (159.0) 164.7 (163.9) 27.0 (30.7) 23.5 (26.5
Maximum force (kN) 6.0 (5.6) 6.5 (6.5) 4.8 (4.7) 2.0 (2.4)
Specific energy absorption (J/g) 1.17 1.17 0.19 0.16
Densification length (mm) 45.0 42.5 18.0 18.0
Figure23.
Figure
Figure 23.Load
23. Loadvs.
Load vs.displacement
vs. displacementcurves
displacement curvesfor
curves forhexagonal
for hexagonalcell
hexagonal cellunder
cell underlateral
under lateralload:
lateral load:comparison
load: comparisonbetween
comparison between
between
Crushing length for energy
experimentaland
experimental and FEA.
FEA. 42.3 42.3 14.8 17.5
(mm)and FEA.
experimental
absorption
Table2.2.Summary
Table Summaryofofexperimental
experimental(average)
(average)and
andFE
FEresults.
results.FE
FEresults
resultsare
areshown
shownininparentheses
parentheses().
().
Energy absorption and maximum force are calculated up to a strain of
Energy absorption and maximum force are calculated up to a strain of 2/3. 2/3.

CellGeometry
Cell Geometry Novel
Novel Hexagonal
Hexagonal Novel
Novel Hexagonal
Hexagonal
(LoadCase)
(Load Case) (AxialLoad)
(Axial Load) (AxialLoad)
(Axial Load) (LateralLoad)
(Lateral Load) (LateralLoad)
(Lateral Load)
Energy absorption
Energy absorption (J) (J) 164.7 (159.0)
164.7 (159.0) 164.7 (163.9)
164.7 (163.9) 27.0 (30.7)
27.0 (30.7) 23.5 (26.5)
23.5 (26.5)
Maximumforce
Maximum force(kN)
(kN) 6.0(5.6)
6.0 (5.6) 6.5(6.5)
6.5 (6.5) 4.8(4.7)
4.8 (4.7) 2.0(2.4)
2.0 (2.4)
Specific energy absorption
Specific energy absorption (J/g)(J/g) 1.17
1.17 1.17
1.17 0.19
0.19 0.16
0.16
Densification length
Densification length (mm)(mm) 45.0
45.0 42.5
42.5 18.0
18.0 18.0
18.0
Crushinglength
Crushing lengthfor
forenergy
energy
42.3
42.3 42.3
42.3 14.8
14.8 17.5
17.5
absorption (mm)
absorption (mm)

Figureof
Figure 24. Comparison 24.the
Comparison
amounts ofofenergy
the amounts of energy
absorbed absorbed
for novel for novel
and hexagonal andalong
cells, hexagonal
the cells, al
axial direction and along the
axial direction and along the lateral direction. lateral direction.
Appl. Mech. 2022, 33, FOR PEER REVIEW 14
309

Figure 25. Comparison of load versus displacement curves between novel and hexagonal cells, in
Figure 25. Comparison of load versus displacement curves between novel and hexagonal cells, in the
the case of both axial force and lateral force.
case of both axial force and lateral force.

4. Discussion
Table 2. Summary of experimental (average) and FE results. FE results are shown in parentheses ().
Energy
Theabsorption
present and maximum
study shows force are calculated
that the up to a strain
energy absorption of 2/3. of the proposed cell
capability
design under quasi-static compression axial load was very similar to that of the conven-
Cell Geometry tional hexagonal cell.Novel Hexagonal
In the lateral direction, however, the Novel
novel cell showedHexagonal
a 15-percent
(Load Case) (Axial Load) (Axial Load) (Lateral Load) (Lateral Load)
increment in absorbed energy compared to the hexagonal cell. The deformation mecha-
Energy absorption (J)
nism observed in 164.7 (159.0)
the case 164.7 (163.9)
of the innovative 27.0load
cell under axial (30.7) 23.5 (26.5)
can be divided into three
Maximum force (kN) 6.0 (5.6) 6.5 (6.5) 4.8 (4.7) 2.0 (2.4)
stages: (1) linear elastic buckling of the vertical walls up to the crushing of one end of the
Specific energy absorption (J/g) 1.17 1.17 0.19 0.16
cell; (2) plastic compression
Densification length (mm) 45.0 up to the crushing
42.5 of the other end
18.0 of cell; and (3) crushing
18.0 of
the central
Crushing length for energy absorption (mm)portion until
42.3final densification.
42.3Under lateral loading,
14.8 the deformation 17.5 pattern
observed in the innovative cell is characterized by the following stages: (1) elastoplastic
buckling of the cell walls; (2) shear fracture of the cell mid-section due to the antisymmet-
4. Discussion
ric cell geometry with respect to the plane at half-height of the cell; and (3) crushing and
The present study shows that the energy absorption capability of the proposed cell
densification.
design under quasi-static
Furthermore, compression
the initial axial
capacity of load was
resisting very
load, similar
which to that
occurs of the conventional
at around 1.8 mm for
both cases, increased from 1.6 kN to 4.8kN, as indicated in Figure 25. This avalue
hexagonal cell. In the lateral direction, however, the novel cell showed 15-percent
corre-
increment in absorbed energy compared to the hexagonal cell. The deformation
sponds to 3 times the capacity of the standard hexagonal geometry. In particular, during mechanism
observed
the in the
first stage ofcase of the innovative
the deformation undercelllateral
underload,
axialbetween
load can0be mm divided
and 4into
mm,three stages:
the energy
(1) linear elastic buckling of the vertical walls up to the crushing
absorbed by the novel cell is 100% higher than the energy absorbed by the standard hex- of one end of the cell;
(2) plastic compression up to the crushing of the other end of cell; and (3) crushing of the
agonal cell. In addition, it was found that the novel cell experienced a 4% increment in
central portion until final densification. Under lateral loading, the deformation pattern
crushing length before densification in the axial direction when compared to the hexago-
observed in the innovative cell is characterized by the following stages: (1) elastoplastic
nal cell. Both cell geometries presented identical crushing lengths before densification in
buckling of the cell walls; (2) shear fracture of the cell mid-section due to the antisymmetric
the lateral direction. The failure mechanisms and energy absorption capabilities observed
cell geometry with respect to the plane at half-height of the cell; and (3) crushing and
in the unit-cell specimens were the result of both the cell topology and the end effect,
densification.
which, combined, facilitated the early collapse of the cell walls. In the case of the innova-
Furthermore, the initial capacity of resisting load, which occurs at around 1.8 mm
tive cell under axial load, the end effect led to the first and second collapse shown in Figure
for both cases, increased from 1.6 kN to 4.8kN, as indicated in Figure 25. This value
7, while under lateral load, the end effect produced the characteristic shear failure in the
corresponds to 3 times the capacity of the standard hexagonal geometry. In particular,
cell mid-section, as depicted in Figure 11. For a multiple-cell arrangement, the authors
during the first stage of the deformation under lateral load, between 0 mm and 4 mm, the
expect that adjacent cells will provide mutual lateral support, tending to compensate the
energy absorbed by the novel cell is 100% higher than the energy absorbed by the standard
deformation
hexagonal cell. pattern observed
In addition, in found
it was the external walls
that the novel ofcell
theexperienced
unit cell specimens. This hy-
a 4% increment in
pothesis will be experimentally and numerically analyzed by the authors
crushing length before densification in the axial direction when compared to the hexagonal as a continuation
of the
cell. Bothpresent study. Additionally,
cell geometries another parameter
presented identical that influenced
crushing lengths the strengthinand
before densification the
energy
lateral direction. The failure mechanisms and energy absorption capabilitieswith
absorption of unit cells was the orientation of the 3D-printing layers respect
observed in
to
thethe loading
unit-cell direction.were
specimens Particularly,
the resultthe
of shear failure
both the shown inand
cell topology Figures 12 and
the end 13 occurs
effect, which,
in a plane parallel
combined, facilitatedto the
the layer
early orientation.
collapse of theThecell
authors
walls.believe that of
In the case changing the current
the innovative cell
layer orientation would lead to an increase in strength and energy
under axial load, the end effect led to the first and second collapse shown in Figure absorption in the7,lateral
while
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 310

under lateral load, the end effect produced the characteristic shear failure in the cell mid-
section, as depicted in Figure 11. For a multiple-cell arrangement, the authors expect that
adjacent cells will provide mutual lateral support, tending to compensate the deformation
pattern observed in the external walls of the unit cell specimens. This hypothesis will be
experimentally and numerically analyzed by the authors as a continuation of the present
study. Additionally, another parameter that influenced the strength and energy absorption
of unit cells was the orientation of the 3D-printing layers with respect to the loading
direction. Particularly, the shear failure shown in Figures 12 and 13 occurs in a plane
parallel to the layer orientation. The authors believe that changing the current layer
orientation would lead to an increase in strength and energy absorption in the lateral
direction, while reducing them in the axial direction. However, this has not yet been
experimentally verified.
As compared to the standard honeycomb configuration, the capacity to absorb more
energy at the beginning of the quasi-static deformation suggests a potential improvement
under dynamic loading as well; this may lead to an enhancement in aircraft passengers’
safety and/or payload integrity under loads with significant lateral components. Fur-
thermore, since the diagonal walls of the innovative geometry are enclosed within a
parallelepiped shape, rectangular sandwich panels can be easily manufactured with this
innovative cell, allowing reduction of the occurrence of local damages and weak points at
the edges of the sandwich structure.

5. Conclusions
An innovative, non-prismatic honeycomb cell was demonstrated to be a valid alterna-
tive to standard hexagonal honeycomb in terms of energy absorption capabilities under
compressive loads. Thanks to the presence of some diagonal walls (in addition to the
traditional vertical walls found in conventional prismatic cells), some additional load paths
are created, which allows to enhance the energy absorption. A cell with innovative geome-
try and a standard hexagonal cell geometry, with the same mass and height, underwent
experimental and FEA compression tests, both in the axial and lateral directions. The
results indicated that the innovative cell geometry offers an amount of energy absorption
under lateral loads that exceeds by 15% the value measured for the standard hexagonal
geometry. On the other hand, the compression tests in the axial directions indicated that
the innovative cell geometry offers a level of energy absorption that is equivalent to the
case of the standard hexagonal cell. This innovative honeycomb geometry can provide an
enhanced level of safety in those engineering applications where loads with a significant
non-normal component are expected. In addition, the external parallelepiped shape allows
the tailoring of honeycomb panels that perfectly match the external boundaries of rectangu-
lar and square sandwich panels, thus reducing the risk of having weak points at the edges
of the panels.

6. Patents
A US Provisional patent Application (No.: 63/299,675 Title: SCUTOIDAL SUB-CELL
AND CELL ARRANGEMENTS. Application Date: 14 January 2022. Inventors: MENE-
GOZZO, Marco; CECCHINI BRIGI, Andres; JUST AGOSTO, Frederick A.; SERRANO
ACEVEDO, David. Applicant: UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO) was submitted for the
innovative geometry presented in this paper.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M., A.C., F.A.J.-A. and D.S.A.; methodology, M.M.,
A.C., F.A.J.-A. and D.S.A.; software, A.C., M.M., F.A.J.-A., D.S.A., O.J.F.V., I.A.-F. and J.D.J.R.; valida-
tion, A.C., M.M., F.A.J.-A., I.A.-F., J.D.J.R., O.J.F.V. and D.S.A.; formal analysis, A.C., M.M., F.A.J.-A.
and D.S.A.; investigation, M.M., A.C., F.A.J.-A., D.S.A., I.A.-F., J.D.J.R. and O.J.F.V.; resources, M.M.,
A.C., F.A.J.-A., D.S.A., O.J.F.V., I.A.-F. and J.D.J.R.; data curation, A.C., M.M., F.A.J.-A., I.A.-F., J.D.J.R.,
O.J.F.V. and D.S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M., A.C., F.A.J.-A., D.S.A., O.J.F.V., I.A.-F.
and J.D.J.R.; writing—review and editing, M.M., A.C., F.A.J.-A., D.S.A., O.J.F.V., I.A.-F. and J.D.J.R.; vi-
sualization, A.C., F.A.J.-A., J.D.J.R., O.J.F.V., I.A.-F., M.M. and D.S.A.; supervision, M.M., A.C., F.A.J.-A.
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 311

and D.S.A.; project administration, M.M., A.C., F.A.J.-A. and D.S.A.; and funding acquisition, M.M.,
F.A.J.-A. and D.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Puerto Rico Science, Technology and Research Trust
(PRSTRT), grant agreement number 2020-00135.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The undergraduate students Giancarlo Castellini-Coutin, Juan Gomez Gonzalez,
Eduardo Morales Rivera, Gabriel Diaz, Paola Colon Abad, Rolando Rosales Rosete, Michael J.
Ledesma Rebollo, Rolando J. Mateo Miranda, Francisco Cruz Jusino and Jesus Montañez-Saad
contributed to the CAD modeling and FEM analyses of the samples. The undergraduate students
Wilfredo A. Tosado Nieves, Antonio Acosta Santiago and David Negron Feliciano contributed to the
execution of the experimental static compression tests. The set-up and execution of the compression
tests was made possible thanks to the Civil Engineering material testing facilities of the University
of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (UPRM), and in particular thanks to the collaboration of Felipe Acosta
and Iván Santiago of the UPRM Civil Engineering Department. The undergraduate student Carlos
Baez Velez was the responsible of the 3D-printing activities within the research group. The additive
manufacturing of the samples was made possible thanks to José E. Lugo Ortiz (Department of
Mechanical Engineering, UPRM) and his research group.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Tarlochan, F. Sandwich Structures for Energy Absorption Applications: A Review. Materials 2021, 14, 4731. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Chen, Y.; Li, T.; Jia, Z.; Scarpa, F.; Yao, C.; Wang, L. 3D printed hierarchical honeycombs with shape integrity under large
compressive deformations. Mater. Des. 2018, 137, 226–234. [CrossRef]
3. Mc Caw, J.C.S.; Cuan-Urquizo, E. Mechanical characterization of 3D printed, non-planar lattice structures under quasi-static
cyclic loading. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2020, 26, 707–717. [CrossRef]
4. Li, T.; Chen, Y.; Hu, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, L. Exploiting negative Poisson’s ratio to design 3D-printed composites with enhanced
mechanical properties. Mater. Des. 2018, 142, 247–258. [CrossRef]
5. Townsend, S.; Adams, R.; Robinson, M.; Hanna, B.; Theobald, P. 3D printed origami honeycombs with tailored out-of-plane
energy absorption behavior. Mater. Des. 2020, 195, 108930. [CrossRef]
6. Bates, S.R.G.; Farrow, I.R.; Trask, R.S. Compressive behaviour of 3D printed thermoplastic polyurethane honeycombs with graded
densities. Mater. Des. 2019, 162, 130–142. [CrossRef]
7. Andrew, J.J.; Alhashmi, H.; Schiffer, A.; Kumar, S.; Deshpande, V.S. Energy absorption and self-sensing performance of 3D printed
CF/PEEK cellular composites. Mater. Des. 2021, 208, 109863. [CrossRef]
8. Ma, J.; Dai, H.; Chai, S.; Chen, Y. Energy absorption of sandwich structures with a kirigami-inspired pyramid foldcore under
quasi-static compression and shear. Mater. Des. 2021, 206, 109808. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, Q.; Yang, Z.; Lu, Z.; Li, X. Mechanical responses of 3D cross-chiral auxetic materials under uniaxial compression. Mater.
Des. 2020, 186, 108226. [CrossRef]
10. Yang, K.; Xu, S.; Shen, J.; Zhou, S.; Xie, Y.M. Energy absorption of thin-walled tubes with pre-folded origami patterns: Numerical
simulation and experimental verification. Thin-Walled Struct. 2016, 103, 33–44. [CrossRef]
11. Li, S.; Liu, Z.; Shim, V.P.W.; Guo, Y.; Sun, Z.; Li, X.; Wang, Z. In-plane compression of 3D-printed self-similar hierarchical
honeycombs—Static and dynamic analysis. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 157, 106990. [CrossRef]
12. Qi, J.; Li, C.; Tie, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Duan, Y. Energy absorption characteristics of origami-inspired honeycomb sandwich structures
under low-velocity impact loading. Mater. Des. 2021, 207, 109837. [CrossRef]
13. Guo, C.; Zhao, D.; Liu, Z.; Ding, Q.; Gao, H.; Yan, Q.; Sun, Y.; Ren, F. The 3D-Printed Honeycomb Metamaterials Tubes with
Tunable Negative Poisson’s Ratio for High-Performance Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties. Materials 2021, 14, 1353.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Zaharia, S.M.; Enescu, L.A.; Pop, M.A. Mechanical Performances of Lightweight Sandwich Structures Produced by Material
Extrusion-Based Additive Manufacturing. Polymers 2020, 12, 1740. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Basurto-Vázquez, O.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, E.P.; McShane, G.J.; Medina, D.I. Load Distribution on PET-G 3D Prints of Honeycomb
Cellular Structures under Compression Load. Polymers 2021, 13, 1983. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Mansour, M.T.; Tsongas, K.; Tzetzis, D. 3D Printed Hierarchical Honeycombs with Carbon Fiber and Carbon Nanotube Reinforced
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 62. [CrossRef]
Appl. Mech. 2022, 3 312

17. Sarvestani, H.Y.; Akbarzadeh, A.H.; Mirbolghasemi, A.; Hermenean, K. 3D printed meta-sandwich structures: Failure mechanism,
energy absorption and multi-hit capability. Mater. Des. 2018, 160, 179–193. [CrossRef]
18. Sarvestani, H.Y.; Akbarzadeh, A.H.; Mirbolghasemi, A.; Hermenean, K. 3D printed architected polymeric sandwich panels:
Energy absorption and structural performance. Compos. Struct. 2018, 200, 886–909. [CrossRef]
19. Özen, İ.; Çava, K.; Gedikli, H.; Alver, Ü.; Aslan, M. Low-energy impact response of composite sandwich panels with thermoplastic
honeycomb and reentrant cores. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 156, 106989. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, J.; Tao, W.; Pang, S. Impact Testing of 3D Re-Entrant Honeycomb Polyamide Structure Using Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9882. [CrossRef]
21. Ma, N.; Deng, Q.; Li, X. Deformation Behaviors and Energy Absorption of Composite Re-Entrant Honeycomb Cylindrical Shells
under Axial Load. Materials 2021, 14, 7129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Gibson, L.J.; Ashby, M.F. Cellular Solids, Structure and Properties, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999;
pp. 99–100. [CrossRef]