This systematic review highlights energy absorption characteristics in non-stochastic cellular solids, suggesting significant insights for engineering applications.
Purpose Cellular solids have gained increasing attention due to the rising demand across various engineering disciplines for lightweight materials that combine high stiffness and strength with improved impact resistance. This study aims to give an in-depth insight into the current literature concerning the energy absorption characteristics of non-stochastic architectures under both static and dynamic loading conditions. Design/methodology/approach The methodology involved an organised search and classification of relevant studies sourced from Scopus database, based on a pre-defined set of keywords. Only articles demonstrating procedural clarity, thematic relevance and data accessibility were considered after a rigorous screening process. To minimise potential bias, inclusion and exclusion criteria were critically re-examined during the selection phase. Findings The literature on the energy absorption capabilities of cellular solids is rapidly growing, with particular emphasis on metallic materials fabricated via laser powder bed fusion, primarily tested under quasi-static loading conditions. Although truss-based designs have traditionally assumed a prominent role, equation-based geometries are attracting increasing interest owing to their distinctive characteristics. Research limitations/implications A comprehensive analysis of materials, additive manufacturing methods and unit cell types is presented to support structural performance evaluation. Furthermore, the proposed study enables the identification of potential research gaps, thereby serving as a valuable resource to prevent redundant work with limited scientific advancement. Originality/value This state-of-the-art overview delivers an updated and expanded examination of the literature, offering valuable contribution for researchers in the field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mele et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: