Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Impact and blast resistance of uniform and graded sandwich panels with
TPMS cellular structures
Nejc Novak a, *, Matej Borovinšek a, Oraib Al-Ketan b, Zoran Ren a, Matej Vesenjak a
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
b
Core Technology Platforms Operations, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The impact and blast resistance of sandwich panels with uniform and functionally graded Triply Periodical
Sandwich panels Minimal Surface (TPMS) cellular cores were analysed in this study. The computational models were validated
Triply periodic minimal surface with available experimental compression tests of four different types of TPMS cellular structures (Diamond,
Impact
Gyroid, IWP and Primitive). The IWP and Primitive structures showed comparable and overall lower critical
Graded structures
Computational modelling
velocities than Gyroid and Diamond structures, exhibiting a more significant strain-rate hardening effect. Two
Blast loading methods of cellular structure grading were applied: the sheet thickness grading (STG) and the cell size grading
(CSG) throughout the structure. The performance of TPMS filled sandwich panels under blast loading was also
computationally analysed and compared to the sandwich panels filled with strut-based cellular structures.
Overall, the specific energy absorption of TPMS filled sandwich panels is up to 25% higher than in the sandwich
panels filled with strut-based core with the same relative density. The introduction of graded porosity using
thickness and cell size variation shows that it is possible to tailor the mechanical and deformation response of the
TPMS structures and TPMS filled sandwich panels while maintaining comparable energy absorption capabilities.

1. Introduction
Novel composite sandwich panels can enhance the protection of
structures against impact, explosion, and ballistic projectiles by sub­
stantially increasing their energy absorption capabilities [1-3]. The
sandwich panel’s mechanical properties are determined by the geome­
try and the material of the face sheet and the carefully selected core
material. The cellular materials with a uniform or graded cellular
structure have an excellent energy absorption to weight ratio and are
often used as the core of composite structures [4-6].
The high strain rate behaviour characterisation of novel materials is
essential for their effective use in real-world applications. The impact
and high strain rate behaviour of cellular structures have been studied to
some extent [7], especially open-cell foams [8], closed-cell foams [9],
and auxetic cellular structures [10-14]. The introduction of graded
cellular structure in aluminium foam demonstrated a way to control the
mechanical response at high strain rates [15]. The study [16] revealed
that the energy absorption of uniform and graded strut-based lattice
samples is comparable at quasi-static loading conditions but very
different at higher strain rates with graded lattice having a more
controlled deformation. Studies [17] and [18] showed a similar effect in
graded auxetic cellular structures. The behaviour of graded triply peri­
odic minimal surface (TPMS) structures under quasi-static loading
conditions were studied in [19]. The experimental and computational
results showed that the graded sheet-network TPMS lattices exhibit
better mechanical properties than the solid-network graded TPMS lat­
tices at the same relative density range. The authors showed in the study
[20] that grading of bending-dominated unit cell lattices of TPMS
structures fabricated from carbon-fibre-reinforced nylon exhibits better
energy absorption capacity at small displacements while grading the
stretching-dominated counterparts is advantageous for large displace­
ments when compared to the ungraded lattice. The impact response of
functionally graded TPMS cellular structures and their blast resistance
performance is for the first time reported in this study.
A limited number of experimental blast loading tests were carried
out for monolithic plates [21] and composite sandwich panels with
cellular cores [22] due to the studies’ high cost, risk, and complexity.
However, a few recently published studies report successful computa­
tional simulations of blast loading of sandwich panels with the strut- or
sheet-based cellular structures as the core, where the use of the sand­
wich panel was proven to be superior in comparison to the monolithic
plates with the same weight [23-27]. The computational simulations

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: n.novak@um.si (N. Novak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116174
Received 5 April 2022; Accepted 22 August 2022
Available online 26 August 2022
0263-8223/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Novak et al.
provide a time-efficient method of predicting structural response under
blast loading conditions, assuming that the computational models are
adequately validated.
A behaviour of bioinspired functionally graded gyroid sandwich
panel under impulse loading was studied in [5]. The sandwich panel was
positioned on a concrete base, where the introduction of the functionally
graded gyroid core noticeably improved the performance of the sand­
wich panel subjected to shock impact (uniform distribution of the stress
field in core). However, no remarkable differences in total energy
absorbed by the core were observed. Additionally, primitive, diamond,
and Fischer-Koch TPMS structures were studied [28], where the sand­
wich panel with a primitive core has shown the best performance.
This study reports the impact and blast behaviour of different types
(Diamond, Gyroid, IWP, and Primitive) of uniform and graded TPMS
cellular structures and sandwich panels using validated computational
models. The critical velocities and strain rate hardening were deter­
mined for the uniform TPMS structures, while graded structures’ me­
chanical and deformation behaviour was determined at different
loading orientations and strain rates. Furthermore, sandwich panels’
deformation behaviour and energy absorption capabilities with uniform
and graded TPMS cores were evaluated and compared to the strut-based
cellular structures.
2. Design approach and material model
2.1. Design of uniform and graded TPMS structures
In this work, uniform and functionally graded TPMS cellular mate­
rials are numerically investigated under impact and blast loading. Four
Fig. 1. CAD models of the different TPMS lattices. a) The different uniform lattices investigated in this study. b) examples of uniform (I), sheet thickness grading (II),
and cell size grading (III).
2
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174
different lattice types were considered for the uniform samples: the
Gyroid, Diamond, IWP, and Primitive lattices (See Fig. 1a). Only a
special case of the Gyroid lattice subjected to impact loading was
investigated for the functionally graded samples. The Gyroid lattice has
recently gained increased interest for use in protective equipment and
impacts mitigation due to its desirable and tunable mechanical prop­
erties [40-42]. However, to the authors’ best knowledge, the impact
response of functionally graded Gyroid lattices has not been
investigated.
Two methods to design graded TPMS structures were used, namely;
(1) the relative density grading, which is achieved by using varying
sheet thickness and fixed cell size (sheet thickness grading - STG) and (2)
cell size grading (CSG) where the size of the unit cell varies with a
constant sheet thickness throughout the sample. Examples of such
grading methods are shown in Fig. 1b.
The designed cellular materials were generated in shell form and the
thicknesses needed to obtain the relative density were assigned in the
numerical model. The generation of shell lattice geometries was done in
MSLattice [29]. The exact mathematical implementation to design the
different cellular materials is explained in detail in [29] and [19].
2.2. Computational models and boundary conditions
The computational models of TPMS structures were built using the
fully integrated shell finite elements (FE) with two through-thickness
integration points. The Schwarz Diamond, Schoen Gyroid, Schoen
IWP, and Schwarz Primitive TPMS structures were generated using
MSLattice, and the FE meshes were prepared using PrePoMax [30]. The
explicit LS-DYNA finite element software system [31] was used for all
N. Novak et al.
reported computer simulations.
2.2.1. Impact loading
In high strain-rate loading scenarios such as crash, blast, and impact
loading, the material inertia significantly influences the material’s
deformation behaviour and mechanical response. The deformation
modes due to inertia effects change at two critical loading velocities that
are particular for any material or cellular structure. The deformation
mode is homogeneous at loading velocities below the first critical ve­
locity. A transition deformation mode is observed between the first and
the second critical velocity. The shock mode appears above the second
critical velocity, characterised by concentrated deformation at the
impact front [35-37].
Several constitutive foam crushing models are proposed in the
literature to predict the dynamic deformation behaviour of cellular
(porous) materials [38]. In this analysis, the Rigid-Power-Law Hard­
ening (R-PLH) model was chosen since it allows for high precision
predictions of shock-induced stress in the densification area. The first
critical loading velocity can be obtained as [7]:
√̅̅̅̅̅
vcr1 = [σ0 /9K]
n+1
2n
K
(1)
ρ0
where σ 0 is the plateau stress (calculated as average stress between the
strain of 0.2 and 0.4), K is the strength index, n is the strain hardening
index, and εD is the densification strain (calculated as the strain at the
intersection point with the line at 1.3 • σ 0 which is represented with the
orange line in Fig. 2). The second critical loading velocity is defined as
[7]:
√̅̅̅̅̅
vcr2 =
K n+1
εD2 (2)
ρ0
The material parameters of the R-PLH model (σ0, K, n, and εd) were
fitted to the experimental data from the quasi-static TPMS cellular
structures compression tests reported in our previous study [34]. The
fitting was done in MS Excel using the nonlinear Generalized Reduced
Gradient (GRG) solving method [39]. The comparison between the
fitted R-PLH model and the experimental curve is shown in Fig. 2.
The boundary conditions shown in Fig. 3 were used to obtain the
stress–strain response of the investigated uniform and functionally
graded lattices at strain rates higher than the second critical loading
Fig. 2. The R-PLH model fitted to the average quasi-static experimental results
of a Diamond TPMS structure with a relative density of 11,4% and the corre­
sponding line (dashed orange line) showing 1.3 • σ0 for determination of
densification strain. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
3
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174
velocities. Following the STG method, the Gyroid structure was divided
into three equally sized layers, with three different RD (21.9%, 17.2%,
and 12.4%) yielding an average relative density of 17.2. Following the
CSG method, a Gyroid lattice with different unit cell sizes along the
testing direction was generated with cell sizes varying from 2 mm to 8
mm, resulting in a 17.2% relative density.
2.2.2. Blast loading
The computational models for blast loading were developed using
the smoothed particle hydrodynamics-finite element method (SPH)
approach. The authors’ previous work showed that this approach
assured the lowest discrepancy between experimental and computa­
tional results [4]. Hence, it was chosen as the most appropriate
computational approach for blast loading simulations of square sand­
wich panels with TPMS core between two steel plates, each 2 mm thick.
The interface contact conditions were defined between the core and the
plates. The computational model size was reduced by applying the
double symmetry conditions. The boundary conditions and geometry
are shown in Fig. 4. The displacement evaluation nodes were chosen at
the centre of the bottom and top steel plate.
Eight different core configurations with the same relative density
were analysed in this study – four different TPMS structures with two
different unit cells sizes (see Fig. 5). The relative density of used samples
corresponds to the relative density of the chiral auxetic structure ana­
lysed in the previous work [4] for comparison purposes.
For the functionally graded cases, the STG was achieved by structure
grading in three layers of the same height (marked in Fig. 5a), while the
CSG was achieved by changing the cell size from 10 mm to 50 mm
(Fig. 6) and using the same wall thickness as in uniform TPMS cores. The
wall thickness of the bottom and top layers was changed by ± 0.05 mm
(approx. 20% of initial thickness) to maintain the same relative density
of the core. The STG cores with Gyroid, Diamond, IWP, and Primitive
geometries were blast-loaded in two different core directions. In the first
case, the blast load acted on the core layer with a lower RD, while in the
second case on the core layer with the highest RD. The CSG cores were
blast loaded in four different core directions (Fig. 6): in direction 1 along
the positive z-axis, acting on a 50 mm cell size layer; in direction 2 along
the negative z-axis, acting on a 10 mm cell size layer; direction 1
mirrored about the x-y plane, and direction 2 rotated for 180◦ around Z-
axis. All orientations of the CSG core are schematically shown in Fig. 6,
together with the blast source positions, except the rotated direction 1,
which is on the opposite side of the core from the blast source in case of
direction 2 rot Z.
2.3. Material parameters of computational models
The elastoplastic material model MAT_024 was used to describe the
constitutive behaviour of the base material of the analysed TPMS
structures [31]. The model is a rate-dependent, three-piecewise-linear
elastic-ideal plastic model [32]. The base material parameters of the
material model MAT_024 reported in Table 1 were determined in the
authors’ previous work [33] where the computational results were
compared to quasi-static experimental data from [34] for each analysed
geometry relative density in terms of mechanical response and defor­
mation behaviour. The material model parameters are the following:
density ρ, Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio ν, initial yield stress σyield
and linear hardening defined by the second point in the stress–strain
diagram (σ2, εpl,2). The ideal plasticity condition was assumed after the
plastic strain εpl,2 to avoid a non-physical deletion of FE in case failure
was considered.
The node to surface contact formulation with friction was defined
between plates and the cellular structure, while the general contact with
friction was defined between the plates of the TPMS cellular structure
(shell FE). The coefficient of friction was set to 0.36 and 0.34 for static
and dynamic cases, respectively, the latter slightly lower to account for
the sliding conditions.
N. Novak et al.
a)
Fig. 3. Loading conditions for the functionally graded cases a) Sheet thickness grading and b) cell size grading.
Fixed support
XZ symmetry
Top plate
Bottom plate
Fig. 4. Geometry and boundary conditions of the computational model for blast loading.
3. Computational simulations of impact loading
3.1. Uniform TPMS lattices
The calculated critical velocities for all analysed TPMS structures are
given in Table 2. In general, the increase in the relative density results in
increased critical velocities, which agrees with Eqs. (1) and (2). The IWP
and the Primitive structures have comparable and overall lower critical
velocities compared to Gyroid and Diamond structures.
The strain rate hardening was analysed by comparing the values of
plateau stress (σ0) at quasi-static (Q-S) and impact loading (100 m/s)
conditions. In general, the strain rate hardening (increased plateau
stress) is higher in structures with lower relative density (RD). The
smallest increase of plateau stress was observed for Diamond structures
and the most significant increase for Primitive structures. The IWP and
Primitive structures have lower critical velocities (Table 2). Therefore,
they have a more significant plateau stress increase than Gyroid and
Diamond structures at the analysed velocity of 100 m/s since the plateau
stress increases according to a polynomial function, as shown in [12].
The oscillation in response increases due to the geometry effects when
increasing the impact velocity in IWP and Primitive structures [34].
4
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174
b)
54 mm
YZ symmetry
Displacement
evaluation nodes
SPH particles
Also, the localisation of the deformation is more pronounced, as in the
case of Gyroid and Diamond structures. Due to those reasons, the strain
rate hardening is more pronounced in IWP and Primitive structures
compared to the Gyroid and Diamond structures. The difference in
deformation behaviour below and above the critical velocities for the
Gyroid lattice structure is shown in Fig. 7. The deformation behaviour at
30 m/s (just below the first critical velocity) is similar to the deformation
behaviour in the case of Q-S testing [34]. In contrast, the deformation
behaviour changes significantly at loading velocities above the second
critical velocity (Fig. 7b).
3.2. Graded TPMS Gyroid lattice
The specific energy absorption (SEA) and the mechanical response
time evolution are essential in impact protection, the latter directly
reflecting on the accelerations of the system. In many cases, it is bene­
ficial to have a response that is either progressive or degressive, which
can be achieved by structure porosity gradation. This can be further
enhanced with the introduction of functionally graded porosity, where
the geometry can be functionally optimised to achieve the desired
response at specific loading conditions [18].
N. Novak et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174

Fig. 5. Geometry of the TPMS cores – a) Gyroid, g) Diamond, c) IWP, and d) Primitive.

second is rotated by 180◦ (the boundary conditions of the fixed and

loading plates are reversed). The results show a shock deformation mode
developing until 15% strain. The stress–strain response of the first
graded structure is similar to the response of the uniform gyroid struc­
ture with 12.4% RD until 15% strain. The same can be concluded for the
second graded structure. The response is similar to a uniform structure
with 21.9% RD until 15% strain. In both cases, the influence of the next
layer with higher/lower RD can be observed above the 15% strain. The
slope of the stress–strain response of the first graded structure is
increasing since the layers with higher RD are deformed later at higher
strains. The response is drastically decreasing in the second graded
structure since the layers with lower RD are crushed later at higher
strains. The uniform sample shows an almost constant response in the
plateau region. The specific energy absorption (SEA) was calculated by
Fig. 6. CSG core with marked blast source positions for three different integrating mechanical response up to 70% strain and divided by the
orientations. density of specimens. The SEA of the graded samples is dependent on the
orientation - it is 10% lower in the second graded sample compared to
the first one (21.6 J/g compared to 26.1 J/g), while SEA of the second
Table 1 graded samples is up to 11% higher than the SEA of uniform structure
The MAT_024 material model parameters. (23.4 J/g) although they both have the same mass.
ρ [kg/m3] E [MPa] ν [-] σyield [MPa] σ2[MPa] εpl,2 [-]
3.2.2. The CSG structures
7850 210,000 0.3 450 650 0.3
The Gyroid structure with cell sizes varying from 2 mm to 8 mm and
17.2% relative density was investigated and compared to the uniform
3.2.1. The STG structures structure. The graded structure was dynamically tested again in two
The mechanical responses of graded Gyroid structures at impact grading directions, small to larger cells (first – initial) and large to small
loading velocity of 100 m/s are shown in Fig. 8, together with the cells (second – rotated), Fig. 9. The mechanical responses and defor­
response of the uniform structure with the same average relative density mation behaviour of CSG Gyroid structures are shown in Fig. 9. The
for comparison purposes. The graded structures were tested in two initial graded structure with cell sizes varying from 2 mm to 8 mm was
different grading directions, small to large RD (the first) and large to also tested under Q-S loading conditions. The results show deformation
small RD (the second). The first structure is shown in Fig. 8, while the localisation in 8 mm cells size in all three cases. The mechanical

Table 2
Critical velocities and corresponding plateau stresses.
Gyroid Diamond IWP Primitive

Relative density [%] 12.4 21.9 11.4 21.8 12.2 22.9 14.2 22.1

vcr1 [m/s] 33.0 41.9 34.7 44.9 28.3 38.0 32.3 37.7
vcr2 [m/s] 59.0 77.7 60.3 81.3 50.5 70.1 53.7 63.7

σ0 quasi-static (v < vcr1) [MPa] 21.8 44.1 25.6 53.4 15.2 38.2 18.3 36.3
σ0 impact (v > vcr2) [MPa] 30.7 54.3 28.5 60.6 24.0 54.7 31.7 57.1
Strain rate hardening coeff. σ0,vcr2/σ0,vcr1 1.41 1.23 1.12 1.13 1.58 1.43 1.74 1.57

5
N. Novak et al.
Fig. 7. The deformation behaviour of uniform Gyroid (21.9% RD) structure at loading velocity of a) 30 m/s and b) 100 m/s – strain intervals: 16%
Fig. 8. Mechanical response of the graded Gyroid structures at the loading
velocity of 100 m/s and comparison to the uniform structures with
different RDs.
response of the initial structure under quasi-static conditions is a
smooth, progressive response with no significant plateau region. Sur­
prisingly, similar behaviour can be observed in dynamically loaded
(impact velocity of 100 m/s) rotated CSG Gyroid structure, although at
slightly higher stress due to strain-rate hardening. The initial CSG
Gyroid structure behaves very differently, with a high-stress peak at
initial deformation followed by strongly decreasing load-carrying
capability until about 30% strain. After this strain level, the mechani­
cal behaviour resembles the Q-S behaviour characterised by mixed-
mode deformation process, resulting in a layer-wise collapse of the
structure. The first stress peak in the response is a consequence of local
crushing in the impact zone with 2 mm cells, while at the strains above
15%, the area with 8 mm cells starts to deform. The SEA of CSG struc­
tures up to 70% strain is less dependent on the grading direction (initial
21.9 J/g compared to 22.1 J/g for rotated configuration) than the STG
structures, while the mechanical responses differ significantly (Fig. 9).
Nonetheless, this grading scenario exhibits less SEA compared to the
uniform case (23.4 J/g) regardless of the testing direction concerning
grading direction.
6
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174
4. Computational simulations of blast loading
4.1. Uniform TPMS core
Typical deformation behaviour of Gyroid 25 TPMS filled sandwich
panel under blast loading is shown in Fig. 10, where significant crushing
and consequently energy absorption of the cellular core is evident.
The displacements of the top and bottom plate (front and back face)
and the SEA were analysed to compare the influence of different cores.
The SEA was evaluated as the internal deformation energy of the
sandwich panel divided by its weight. The maximum top and bottom
plate displacements are shown in Fig. 11.
As expected, the differences in the responses with different core
geometries are not significant since the relative density is the same in all
analysed cases. Furthermore, the displacement determined by the chiral
auxetic core [4] with the same relative density is comparable (marked
with dashed lines in Fig. 11). The bottom plate displacements with TPMS
cores are on average 3% larger than displacements observed in the
panels with the auxetic chiral core, while the top plate displacements are
on average 12% smaller. This indicates that the TPMS cores deform
more than the auxetic chiral core. Different size of unit cells influences
the sandwich panel response such that smaller cell size causes smaller
bottom plate displacements, while the trend is opposite for the top plate
displacement, which is related to lower deformability of cells with
smaller cell sizes.
The SEA results in Fig. 12 show that all core geometries absorb
similar energy, while different cores influence the top and bottom
plate’s SEA. The results show that the SEA of the bottom plate increases
with the smaller unit cell size and is the largest for the IWP core. The
sandwich panel with the Primitive core has the lowest overall SEA. This
can be attributed to the lowest stiffness of the Primitive geometry
compared to other geometries analysed in this work (Table 2). Although
the Primitive structure’s strain-rate hardening is the largest among all
analysed TPMS geometries (Table 2), the velocity of the bottom plate
during blast loading is approx. 35 m/s, near the first critical loading
velocity with negligible strain-rate effect. The sandwich panels with the
Diamond core have similar SEA compared to the Gyroid and IWP
structures. Overall, the SEA of sandwich panels with TPMS cores is about
25% higher than comparable sandwich panels with the chiral auxetic
core with the same RD.
N. Novak et al. Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174

Fig. 9. The mechanical response and deformation behaviour of CSG Gyroid structures at different loading velocities and gradation directions.

Fig. 10. Deformation behaviour of TPMS (Gyroid 25) filled sandwich panel (time step: 100 µs).

4.2. Graded TPMS core

The simulation results for all core and blast direction variations
(Figs. 13 and 14) were compared to the results of blast simulation of
sandwich panels with a uniform core of IWP with 25 mm unit cell, which
demonstrated the highest SEA and lowest bottom plate displacements
(dashed lines in Figs. 13 and 14). The maximum top and bottom plate
displacements are shown in Fig. 13. The bottom plate displacements are
lower in rotated configurations for all analysed geometries with STG
cores, where the blast loading acts on the layer with the higher RD. The
top plate displacements are more significant in rotated configurations
and generally lower than the displacements of the uniform IWP core
(dotted line). The difference between the bottom plate displacements of
both analysed configurations is the highest in the case of the Primitive
geometry (14%) and the lowest in the case of IWP (5%), while the dif­
ferences in the top plate displacement are negligible - below 1% for all
analysed cases.
The top and bottom plate displacements of sandwich panels with
CSG cores are lower when blast loading acts on the core with a lower cell
size gradient and higher RD. The CSG core provides lower bottom plate
displacement and higher top plate displacement than the uniform IWP
Fig. 11. Top and bottom plate displacements (dashed lines represent the results
core and the STG cores. The CSG cores can provide a higher difference
of the chiral auxetic core).
between the top and bottom plate displacement for different geometries
while changing the direction of blast loading has a negligible effect.

7
N. Novak et al.
a.)
16000
14000
12000
10000 Top
SEA [J/kg]
Core
8000
Bottom
6000
4000
2000
0 0
Fig. 12. Specific energy absorption of the top plate, bottom plate, and core a) and global energy absorption of the sandwich panel b) – dashed lines represent the
results of the chiral auxetic core.
Fig. 13. Top and bottom plate displacement of graded TMPS core sandwich
panels (dashed lines represent the results of the uniform IWP core with 25 mm
unit cell).
However, the rotation of the CSG core around the z-axis can decrease the
top (bottom) plate displacements by up to 16% (4%).
The analysis of SEA (Fig. 14) reveals that some of the graded cores
could provide comparable or even better energy absorption capabilities
than the uniform cores. In general, the rotated configurations of the STG
cores have a lower SEA for the core and the bottom plate and have a
higher SEA for the top plate. This is a consequence of a more significant
top plate displacement and, therefore, more extensive deformation of
the top plate. In the case of the CSG cores, the SEA of the core is lower
than in the uniform IWP and STG cores, while the SEA of the plates is
significantly higher in the case of CSG cores.
Overall, the sandwich panels with rotated STG cores (higher RD close
to the explosion) provide lower SEA than the uniformly graded and
uniform cores (Fig. 14b). The SEA increase is up to 2% in IWP and up to
1% in Gyroid and Diamond cores if compared to the uniform core. The
Primitive core has 1% lower SEA compared to the uniform core. The SEA
8
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174
b.)
30000
25000
20000
SEA [J/kg]
15000
sum SEA
10000
5000
of rotated configurations is in general 2–3% lower than typical config­
urations. The sandwich panels with CSG cores provide a higher SEA than
the uniform IWP and STG cores. The most significant difference is about
5% for the CSG core and direction 1 (Fig. 14). The SEA of STG geome­
tries rotated around the z-axis, which have lower displacements
(Fig. 13), results in a lower SEA (3% in dir. 1 and 1% in dir. 2).
5. Conclusions
Computational models for impact and blast loading of sheet-based
TPMS cellular structures with four different geometries were devel­
oped and used for comparative computational simulations. The analyt­
ical predictions of critical impact velocities showed that the IWP and
Primitive cellular structures have the lowest critical velocities, while the
Diamond structures have the highest. As a consequence of a changed
deformation mode, the strain-rate hardening was evaluated by
comparing the plateau stress at the loading velocities below the first
critical velocity (quasi-static deformation regime) and above the second
critical velocity (shock deformation regime). The highest strain-rate
hardening was observed for the IWP and Primitive lattices, while the
Gyroid and Diamond structures are less prone to strain hardening due to
higher critical velocities. Their plateau stresses are higher due to the
polynomial dependency of the plateau stress on the loading velocity
[12].
The graded porosity was introduced to the Gyroid lattice to investi­
gate the directional dependence of the mechanical response and energy
absorption concerning grading direction. The results show that the SEA
of the STG graded samples subjected to impact loading is up to 11%
higher than the SEA of uniform structure with the same mass.
Furthermore, the TPMS-filled sandwich panel behaviour was evalu­
ated under blast loading and compared to the strut-based chiral auxetic
cellular structure with the same relative density. Four different TPMS
geometries with two different unit cell sizes were analysed. The differ­
ences in global responses (plate displacements) were not significant
since all analysed geometries had the same relative density. The bottom
plate displacements with TPMS cores are on average 3% smaller than in
the chiral core, while the top plate displacements are on average 12%
smaller in the case of TPMS cores. A smaller bottom plate displacement
was observed when using smaller unit cell sizes, while the trend was
opposite in top plate displacement – smaller unit cell size results in
larger top plate displacement. The SEA is the lowest in the case of the
N. Novak et al.
Fig. 14. Specific energy absorption of the a) top, bottom plate and the core of graded TMPS core sandwich panels and b) global energy absorption of the sandwich
panel – dashed lines represent the results of the uniform IWP core with 25 mm unit cell.
sandwich panel with the Primitive core – this is due to the lowest stiff­
ness of the Primitive geometry compared to the other geometries ana­
lysed in this work, while the SEA of the Diamond, Gyroid, and IWP cores
are comparable and up to 25% higher than the strut-based chiral auxetic
core with the same RD.
The sandwich panels with graded porosity cores were also tested and
compared to the panels with uniform cores with the highest SEA. The
bottom plate displacements of all analysed geometries were lower when
the blast loading acts on the core layer with the highest RD and com­
parable to the uniform core’s displacements. The influence of graded
core on the bottom plate displacement is the largest in Primitive ge­
ometry and the lowest in the case of the IWP. The SEA increases in the
IWP, Gyroid and Diamond graded cores if the blast loading acts on the
core layer with the lowest RD. The sandwich panels with cell-sized
graded cores provide up to 5% higher SEA than the uniform IWP core
and STG cores and therefore show an exemplary deformation behaviour
of all analysed cores.
The influence of a graded core could be even more considerable in
cores with a higher overall RD, which will result in smaller deformation
of the core (Fig. 10) and a higher core/plate stiffness ratio. The same
effect can be achieved using the thinner top and bottom plates if the
deformation of the sandwich panel is not limited.
The developed and verified computational models offer a framework
for future parametric studies of the impact and blast behaviour of TPMS
structures to evaluate combinations of different plate/core stiffnesses,
core gradation and boundary conditions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time due to technical or time limitations.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Slovenian Research Agency’s financial
support (postdoctoral research project No. Z2-2648 and national
research programme funding No. P2-0063).
9
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174
References
[1] Imbalzano G, Tran P, Ngo TD, Lee PVS. A numerical study of auxetic composite
panels under blast loadings. Compos Struct Sep. 2015;135:339–52. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.09.038.
[2] Liu W, Wang N, Luo T, Lin Z. In-plane dynamic crushing of re-entrant auxetic
cellular structure. Mater Des 2016;100:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2016.03.086.
[3] Yazdani Sarvestani H, Akbarzadeh AH, Niknam H, Hermenean K. 3D printed
architected polymeric sandwich panels: Energy absorption and structural
performance. Compos Struct 2018;200:886–909.
[4] Novak N, Starčevič L, Vesenjak M, Ren Z. Blast response study of the sandwich
composite panels with 3D chiral auxetic core. Compos Struct 2019;210:167–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.050.
[5] Peng C, Tran P. Bioinspired functionally graded gyroid sandwich panel subjected to
impulsive loadings. Compos Part B Eng 2020;188:107773. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107773.
[6] Lehmhus D, Vesenjak M, de Schampheleire S, Fiedler T. From stochastic foam to
designed structure: Balancing cost and performance of cellular metals. Materials
(Basel) 2017;10(922):1–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10080922.
[7] Zheng Z, Yu J, Wang C, Liao S, Liu Y. Dynamic crushing of cellular materials: A
unified framework of plastic shock wave models. Int J Impact Eng 2013;53:29–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2012.06.012.
[8] Harris JA, Winter RE, McShane GJ. Impact response of additively manufactured
metallic hybrid lattice materials. Int J Impact Eng 2017;104:177–91. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.02.007.
[9] Novak N, Vesenjak M, Duarte I, Tanaka S, Hokamoto K, Krstulović-Opara L, et al.
Compressive Behaviour of Closed-Cell Aluminium Foam at Different Strain Rates.
Materials (Basel) 2019;12(24):4108.
[10] Qi C, Jiang F, Yu C, Yang S. In-plane crushing response of tetra-chiral honeycombs.
Int J Impact Eng 2019;130(December 2018):247–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijimpeng.2019.04.019.
[11] Novak N, Hokamoto K, Vesenjak M, Ren Z. Mechanical behaviour of auxetic
cellular structures built from inverted tetrapods at high strain rates. Int J Impact
Eng 2018;122:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.08.001.
[12] Novak N, Vesenjak M, Tanaka S, Hokamoto K, Ren Z. Compressive behaviour of
chiral auxetic cellular structures at different strain rates. Int J Impact Eng Jul.
2020;141:103566. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJIMPENG.2020.103566.
[13] Mauko A, Fíla T, Falta J, Koudelka P, Rada V, Neuhäuserová M, et al. Dynamic
Deformation Behaviour of Chiral Auxetic Lattices at Low and High Strain-Rates.
Metals (Basel) Dec. 2020;11(1):52.
[14] Fíla T, et al. Impact testing of polymer-filled auxetics using split hopkinson
pressure bar. Adv Eng Mater 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201700076.
[15] Li L, Han B, He S-Y, Zhao Z-Y, Zhang R, Zhang Q-C, et al. Shock loading simulation
using density-graded metallic foam projectiles. Mater Des 2019;164:107546.
[16] Maskery I, Aboulkhair NT, Aremu AO, Tuck CJ, Ashcroft IA, Wildman RD, et al.
A mechanical property evaluation of graded density Al-Si10-Mg lattice structures
manufactured by selective laser melting. Mater Sci Eng A 2016;670:264–74.
[17] Novak N, Borovinšek M, Vesenjak M, Wormser M, Körner C, Tanaka S, et al.
Crushing Behavior of Graded Auxetic Structures Built from Inverted Tetrapods
under Impact. Phys Status Solidi B 2019;256(1):1800040.
[18] Novak N, Vesenjak M, Ren Z. Computational Simulation and Optimisation of
Functionally Graded Auxetic Structures Made From Inverted Tetrapods. Phys
Status Solidi B 2017;254(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.201600753.
[19] Al-Ketan O, Lee D-W, Rowshan R, Abu Al-Rub RK. Functionally graded and multi-
morphology sheet TPMS lattices: Design, manufacturing, and mechanical
properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020;102:103520.
N. Novak et al.
[20] Plocher J, Panesar A. Effect of density and unit cell size grading on the stiffness and
energy absorption of short fibre-reinforced functionally graded lattice structures.
Addit Manuf 2020;33:101171.
[21] Neuberger A, Peles S, Rittel D. Scaling the response of circular plates subjected to
large and close-range spherical explosions. Part I: Air-Blast loading. Int J Impact
Eng 2007;34(5):859–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2006.04.001.
[22] Li X, Zhang P, Wang Z, Wu G, Zhao L. Dynamic behavior of aluminum honeycomb
sandwich panels under air blast: Experiment and numerical analysis. Compos
Struct 2014;108(1):1001–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.10.034.
[23] Imbalzano G, Linforth S, Ngo TD, Lee PVS, Tran P. Blast Resistance of Auxetic and
Honeycomb Sandwich Panels: Comparisons and Parametric Designs. Compos
Struct 2017;183:242–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.03.018.
[24] Qi C, Yang S, Yang L-J, Wei Z-Y, Lu Z-H. Blast resistance and multi-objective
optimisation of aluminum foam-cored sandwich panels. Compos Struct Nov. 2013;
105:45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.04.043.
[25] Xue Z, Hutchinson JW. A comparative study of impulse-resistant metal sandwich
plates. Int J Impact Eng 2004;30(10):1283–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijimpeng.2003.08.007.
[26] Grujicic M, Galgalikar R, Snipes JS, Yavari R, Ramaswami S. Multi-physics
modeling of the fabrication and dynamic performance of all-metal auxetic-
hexagonal sandwich-structures. Mater Des 2013;51:113–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.004.
[27] Jin X, Wang Z, Ning J, Xiao G, Liu E, Shu X. Dynamic response of sandwich
structures with graded auxetic honeycomb cores under blast loading. Compos Part
B Eng 2016;106:206–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.037.
[28] Tran P, Peng C. Triply periodic minimal surfaces sandwich structures subjected to
shock impact. J Sandw Struct Mater 2021;23(6):2146–75.
[29] Al-Ketan O, R. k.. Abu Al-Rub, “MSLattice: A free software for generating uniform
and graded lattices based on triply periodic minimal surfaces,”. Mater Des Process
Commun 2020;no. August:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdp2.205.
[30] Borovinšek M. PrePoMax.
[31] Hallquist J. LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual. Livermore, California: Livermore
Software Technology Corporation; 2007.
10
Composite Structures 300 (2022) 116174
[32] Marzi S, Hesebeck O, Brede M, Kleiner F. A Rate-Dependent , Elasto-Plastic
Cohesive Zone Mixed-Mode Model for Crash Analysis of Adhesively Bonded Joints;
2009.
[33] Novak N, Al-Ketan O, Borovinšek M, Krstulović-Opara L, Rowshan R, Vesenjak M,
et al. Development of novel hybrid TPMS cellular lattices and their mechanical
characterisation. J Mater Res Technol 2021;15:1318–29.
[34] Novak N, Al-Ketan O, Krstulović-Opara L, Rowshan R, Abu Al-Rub RK, Vesenjak M,
et al. Quasi-static and dynamic compressive behaviour of sheet TPMS cellular
structures. Compos Struct 2021;266:113801.
[35] Reid SR, Peng C. Dynamic uniaxial crushing of wood. Int J Impact Eng 1997;19
(5–6):531–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-743X(97)00016-X.
[36] Tan PJ, Reid SR, Harrigan JJ, Zou Z, Li S. Dynamic compressive strength properties
of aluminium foams. Part I - Experimental data and observations. J Mech Phys
Solids 2005;53(10):2174–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2005.05.007.
[37] Tan PJ, Reid SR, Harrigan JJ, Zou Z, Li S. Dynamic compressive strength properties
of aluminium foams. Part II - ’shock’ theory and comparison with experimental
data and numerical models. J Mech Phys Solids 2005;53(10):2206–30. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmps.2005.05.003.
[38] Sun Y, Li QM. Dynamic compressive behaviour of cellular materials: A review of
phenomenon, mechanism and modelling. Int J Impact Eng 2018;112(October
2017):74–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2017.10.006.
[39] El Mouatasim A, Ellaia R, Souza De Cursi E. Stochastic perturbation of reduced
gradient & GRG methods for nonconvex programming problems. Appl Math
Comput 2014;226:198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2013.10.024.
[40] Li X, Xiao L, Song W. Compressive behavior of selective laser melting printed
Gyroid structures under dynamic loading. Addit Manuf Oct. 2021;46:102054.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2021.102054.
[41] Al-Ketan O, Lee D-W, Abu Al-Rub RK. Mechanical properties of additively-
manufactured sheet-based gyroidal stochastic cellular materials. Addit Manuf
2021;48:102418.
[42] AlMahri S, Santiago R, Lee D-W, Ramos H, Alabdouli H, Alteneiji M, et al.
Evaluation of the dynamic response of triply periodic minimal surfaces subjected to
high strain-rate compression. Addit Manuf 2021;46:102220.