Experimental Comparison of the Energy Absorption Properties of Different Cellular Materials

ABSTRACT Energy absorption under compressive load is a key criterion for the use of cellular materials in lightweight construction, protection, and damping applications. The choice of microstructure is essential, as it significantly influences the deformation behavior. For this reason, three structural classes of open‐celled materials are compared with each other. While open‐cell foam structures are characterized by a stochastically distributed cell geometry consisting of nodes and ligaments, beam‐based lattice structures are composed of regularly arranged unit cells. In contrast to both architectures, triply periodic minimal surface structures (TPMS) do not contain discrete nodes; they are formed by continuous, smooth, and periodic surfaces. To enable an objective comparison, open‐cell foams, TPMS, and conventional beam‐based lattice structures with identical relative density are produced using 3D printing and then experimentally examined under pressure loading. The differences in the resulting load‐deformation curves are presented in detail.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PAMM
Published
2026-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/pamm.70241
Primary Topic
Cellular and Composite Structures
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Experimental Comparison of the Energy Absorption Properties of Different Cellular Materials

Stefan Buchen, Sören Bieler, Kerstin Weinberg
PAMM
Cellular and Composite Structures
article

Experimental Comparison of the Energy Absorption Properties of Different Cellular Materials

Stefan Buchen, Sören Bieler, Kerstin Weinberg
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Energy absorption under compressive load is a key criterion for the use of cellular materials in lightweight construction, protection, and damping applications. The choice of microstructure is essential, as it significantly influences the deformation behavior. For this reason, three structural classes of open‐celled materials are compared with each other. While open‐cell foam structures are characterized by a stochastically distributed cell geometry consisting of nodes and ligaments, beam‐based lattice structures are composed of regularly arranged unit cells. In contrast to both architectures, triply periodic minimal surface structures (TPMS) do not contain discrete nodes; they are formed by continuous, smooth, and periodic surfaces. To enable an objective comparison, open‐cell foams, TPMS, and conventional beam‐based lattice structures with identical relative density are produced using 3D printing and then experimentally examined under pressure loading. The differences in the resulting load‐deformation curves are presented in detail.

PAMMVol. 26(4)
University of Siegen (DE)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Cellular and Composite Structures
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Experimental Comparison of the Energy Absorption Properties of Different Cellular Materials — Stefan Buchen, Sören Bieler, et al. · PAMM (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS