ArticleScientific reports2026
Additively manufactured bioinspired multilayer sandwich structures with varied core configurations under out-of-plane compression.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this research, novel bio-inspired multilayer sandwich panels were fabricated by Multi Jet fusion and evaluated under quasi-static out-of-plane compression to examine the influence of core topology, cell size, intercell spacing, and layer orientation. The rhombic and hexagonal cores exhibited superior performance, with absorbed energies of 440.46 J and 363.96 J, respectively, and specific absorbed energies (SAE) of 4.50 J/g and 4.18 J/g. In contrast, the square and circular cores absorbed less energy, 264 J and 270 J, with SAE of 3.83 J/g and 3.60 J/g, respectively. Reducing the inscribed diameter from 2.0 to 1.5 mm increased peak load by between 10 and 15%, while energy absorption rose by 13% in circular cores and 6% in hexagonal cores, with SAE gains of 10 and 5%, respectively. Increasing intercell spacing from 2.0 to 2.5 mm improved energy absorption by 12% in circular cores and 14% in hexagonal cores, with SAE increases of 5 and 7%. Alternating corrugation orientation further enhanced performance, raising energy absorption by 20% in circular cores and 22% in hexagonal cores. In general, energy absorption was governed by progressive failure mechanisms including yielding, buckling, delamination, and cracking. These insights bridge additive manufacturing and bio-inspired design with structural engineering by linking core topology and geometry to measurable gains in peak load, absorbed energy, and specific absorbed energy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.