Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 387–395 | Cite as

Drop-Weight Impact Behavior of Three-Dimensional Printed Polymer Lattice Structures with Spatially Distributed Vertical Struts

  • M. Al Rifaie
  • A. MianEmail author
  • P. Katiyar
  • P. Majumdar
  • R. Srinivasan


Three-dimensional (3D) printed polymer lattice structures of different configurations are investigated in this research to study their behavior under low-velocity impact load. The Body Centered Cubic (BCC) is modified and redesigned to generate three additional sets of the lattice structures to compare their impact energy absorption capability. The modified designs are (a) BCC with vertical struts connecting all nodes (BCCV) (b) BCC with vertical bars connecting alternate nodes (BCCA), and (c) BCC with gradient distribution of struts (BCCG). All the four sets are created using Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) polymer material on a Stratasys uPrint 3D printer. An in-house built ASTM Standard D7136 drop tester was used to capture the impact response. Data obtained from the attached accelerometer is post processed to find velocity, displacement, transferred energy, and force histories. The absorbed energy is found from the change in kinetic energy of the impactor before and after impact. It is observed that the selective placement of vertical support struts in the thickness direction influences the impact response of lattice structures.


Additive manufacturing 3D printing Energy absorption Lattice structures Low velocity impact 



  1. 1.
    Nguyen DS (2016) A method to generate lattice structure for additive manufacturing. pp 966–970Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dhaliwal GS, Newaz GM (2016) Modeling low velocity impact response of carbon fiber reinforced aluminum laminates (CARALL). J Dyn Behav Mater 2:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ju J, Summers JD, Ziegert J, Fadel G (2012) Design of honeycombs for modulus and yield strain in shear. J Eng Mater Technol 134(1):011002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hundley JM, Clough EC, Jacobsen AJ (2015) The low velocity impact response of sandwich panels with lattice core reinforcements. Int J Impact Eng 84:64–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mines RAW, Tsopanos S, Shen Y, Hasan R, McKown ST (2013) Drop weight impact behaviour of sandwich panels with metallic micro lattice cores. Int J Impact Eng 60:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shen Y, Cantwell W, Mines R, Li Y (2014) Low-velocity impact performance of lattice structure core based sandwich panels. J Compos Mater 48(25):3153–3167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao W, Xie Z, Li X, Yue X, Sun J (2018) Compression after impact behavior of titanium honeycomb sandwich structures. J Sandwich Struc Mater 20(5):639–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams CB. Design and development of layer-based additive manufacturing process for realization of metal parts of designed mesostructure, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology 2008. Accessed 10 July 2018
  9. 9.
    Turner AJ, Al Rifaie M, Mian A, Srinivasan R (2018) Low-velocity impact behavior of sandwich structures with additively manufactured polymer lattice cores. J Mater Eng Perform 27(5):2505–2512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vitale M, Cotteleer M, Holdowsky J (2016) An overview of additive manufacturing (cover story). Def AT&L 45(6):6–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neitzert TR (2015) Accuracy of additive manufactured parts. Key Eng Mater 661:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    June FA (2017) Acta technica corviniensis–bulletin of engineering compressive properties of commonly usedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saadlaoui Y, Milan JL, Rossi JM, Chabrand P (2017) Topology optimization and additive manufacturing: comparison of conception methods using industrial codes. J Manuf Syst 43:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ben-Ner A, Siemsen E (2017) Decentralization and localization of production. Calif Manage Rev 59(2):5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bagsik A, Schöoppner V (2011) Mechanical properties of fused deposition modeling parts manufactured with ULTEM 9085. Proc ANTEC 2011:1294–1298Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Su H, McConnell J (2011) Influences of material properties on energy absorption of composite sandwich panels under blast loads. J Compos Constr 16(4):464–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    St-Pierre L, Deshpande VS, Fleck NA (2015) The low velocity impact response of sandwich beams with a corrugated core or a Y-frame core. Int J Mech Sci 91:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vesenjak M, Ren Z, Öchsner A (2008) Behaviour of cellular materials under impact loading. Mater Sci Eng Technol 39(2):125–132Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bao Jin-Biao, Weng Geng-Sheng, Zhao Ling, Liu Zhi-Feng, Chen Zhong-Ren (2014) Tensile and impact behavior of polystyrene microcellular foams with bi-modal cell morphology. J Cell Plast 50(4):381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stratasys. uPrint SE Plus (2018) Accessed 21 Feb 2018
  21. 21.
    Stratasys. ABSplus (2018) Accessed 21 Feb 2018
  22. 22.
    Vidakis N, Petousis M, Vairis A, Savvakis K, Maniadi A (2017) On the compressive behavior of an FDM Steward Platform part. J Comput Des Eng 1:339–346Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turner AJ (2018) Low-Velocity Impact Behavior of Sandwich Panels with 3D Printed Polymer Lattice Core Structures,” MS Thesis, Wright State University, 2017.!etd.send_file?accession=wright1496345616948541&disposition=inline. Accessed 10 July 2018
  24. 24.
    Al Rifaie M, Mian A, Srinivasan R (2018) Compression behavior of three-dimensional printed polymer lattice structures. J Mater. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Materials EngineeringWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations