Article

Investigation of Damping Properties of Natural Fiber-Reinforced

Composites at Various Impact Energy Levels
Ercan Şimşir 1, * , Yelda Akçin Ergün 2 and İbrahim Yavuz 1

1 Department of Automotive Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Afyon Kocatepe University,

Afyonkarahisar 03200, Turkey; [email protected]
2 Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Afyon Kocatepe University,
Afyonkarahisar 03200, Turkey; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Natural fiber-reinforced composites are composite materials composed of natural fibers,
such as plant fibers and synthetic biopolymers. These environmentally friendly composites are
biodegradable, renewable, cheap, lightweight, and low-density, attracting attention as eco-friendly
alternatives to synthetic fiber-reinforced composites. In this study, natural fiber-reinforced polymer
foam core layered composites were produced for the automotive industry. Fabrics woven from goat
wool were used as the natural fiber. Polymer foam with expanded polystyrene (EPS) and extruded
polystyrene (XPS) structures was used as the core material. During production, fibers were bonded
to the upper and lower layers of the core structures using resin. The hand lay-up method was used
in production. After resin application, the samples were cured under a heated press for 2 h. After
the production was completed, the material was cut according to the standards (10-20-30 Joule), and
impact and bending tests were conducted at three different energy levels. The experiments revealed
that at 10 J, the material exhibited rebound; at 20 J, it showed resistance to stabbing; and at 30 J, it
experienced penetration. While EPS foam demonstrated higher impact resistance in the 10 J test, it
was found that XPS foam exhibited better impact resistance and absorption capabilities in the 20 J and
30 J tests. Due to the open and semi-closed cell structure of EPS foams and the closed cell structure of
XPS foams, it has been concluded that XPS foams exhibit higher impact resistance and better energy
absorption properties
Citation: Şimşir, E.; Akçin Ergün, Y.;
Yavuz, İ. Investigation of Damping
Keywords: natural fiber; low-speed impact test; laminated composite; XPS; EPS
Properties of Natural Fiber-Reinforced
Composites at Various Impact Energy
Levels. Polymers 2024, 16, 3553.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym16243553 1. Introduction
With all the technological developments achieved in the 21st century, humanity has
Academic Editors: Biao Hu and
Lei Gao
become increasingly sensitive to the environmental damage caused by these advancements.
Particularly, the rapid increase in waste production poses threats to human health, the
Received: 14 November 2024 environment, and our planet. The situation has been exacerbated by the recent population
Revised: 12 December 2024 growth, with global waste production expected to reach 3.4 billion tons by 2050 [1]. The
Accepted: 16 December 2024 release of unwanted products considered as waste is an unavoidable situation in many
Published: 20 December 2024
processes. It is known that approximately 7–9 billion tons of waste are produced annually
worldwide [2]. At this point, the scientific world has focused on research into sustainable
solutions, with materials that are biodegradable yet meet stringent service demands gaining
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
importance. Natural fiber-reinforced composites stand out as an important area of research
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. in materials science [3–6]. Approximately 2.4 million tons of sheep and goat wool are pro-
This article is an open access article duced annually, with only a quarter of this amount being used in textile production [7–9].
distributed under the terms and The remaining wool is considered waste material that needs to be disposed of somehow.
conditions of the Creative Commons This disposal process typically involves incineration or destruction options, which can lead
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// to significant environmental problems. Waiting for it to biodegrade is time consuming [10].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The most practical solution for waste management is to reuse waste materials and reintro-
4.0/). duce them into production instead of using natural resources. Such a recycling process

Polymers 2024, 16, 3553. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16243553 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 2 of 14

offers various advantages, such as reducing pollution, eliminating or reducing waste sent
to landfills, and preserving raw materials [11–16]. Therefore, the recycling of manufactured
products is an important issue both economically and environmentally.
Composite materials are novel materials obtained by combining at least two compo-
nents, reinforcement and matrix, at a macro level. The properties of the reinforcement are
enhanced by the matrix that binds these reinforcements together, thus facilitating the entire
material design process. In recent years, they have been used in a variety of industries,
including automotive, energy, transportation, and aviation, because of their high specific
strength values. In these fields, where polymer matrices and reinforcements like carbon,
glass, and aramid fibers are frequently used, the usage of natural fibers has grown in
popularity. Relatively high specific strength, affordability, formability, low weight, sustain-
ability and environmental friendliness, biocompatibility, and robust fatigue and corrosion
resistance are some of the benefits of natural fibers over conventional substitutes [15,17,18].
Fiber generated from vegetable or animal sources is referred to as natural fiber. One bio-
product that develops on the bodies of animals like sheep and goats is wool, which is
produced continuously over the course of the animal’s life. The thickness, length, and curl
of the fibers determine how these wools are used. Because of its thermal properties, wool
is frequently employed as an insulating material [19]. In addition to its thermal efficiency,
wool has excellent hydrophobic and hydrophilic qualities and is remarkably durable. Wool
fibers are ideal for polymer composites that need to be extremely strong since they are
extremely fatigue resistant and can stretch up to 20,000 times before breaking. Wool can be
used with asbestos in fire-resistant composites since it is also fire resistant. Wool has been
thoroughly studied for its usage in military protective gear due to its strength, flexibility,
and longevity [20–24].
A review of the literature reveals that natural fiber-reinforced polymers, or NFRPs, are
becoming more and more popular in both the academic and industrial sectors. Their natural
fibers’ qualities have led to their employment in a wide range of applications, including au-
tomotive (e.g., door panels, console systems, and bumper reinforcements) [25–27] aerospace
(e.g., interior panels, lightweight structures, and reinforced composite components), [28–30]
furniture, musical instrument making (e.g., guitar bodies, violin backs) [31,32] and it has
also found use in sports equipment (e.g., tennis rackets, ski boards) [33].
The automotive sector uses NFRP composites for a number of purposes, such as
seat backs [34–36], floor and door panels [37–39], car floor coverings and ceilings [40–42],
brake pads [43–45], and luggage compartments [46,47]. They are employed in both interior
and exterior components. The protection of passengers is an extremely important issue,
especially in transportation, leading to the constant development of new shock absorbers
for transportation applications. Sandwich structures are leaders in this field due to their
high bending strength-to-weight ratio and energy absorption capacity. They consist of two
thin outer layers covering a thick, lightweight core. This structure is capable of providing
very high flexural strength and torsional stiffness [48] while reducing weight compared to
solid monomaterial based designs.
Upon reviewing the literature, it becomes evident that there are numerous studies
examining the energy absorption capabilities of sandwich structures. Some of these studies
have focused on the contribution of the change in the microstructure of the core material,
or in the case of [49,50], the change in the shape of the core material to the mechanical prop-
erties of the sandwich material and therefore to its energy absorption capacity. Additive
manufacturing is highlighted in studies where changes in the shape of the core material are
considered [51–54]. Two separate sandwich composites consisting of polypropylene and
carbon fiber layers on a polypropylene core were produced, and which of these materials
would have the better energy absorption capacity was investigated both experimentally
and with the finite element method [55].
Given the significance of passenger safety in transportation, this study aims to investi-
gate the energy absorption properties of a sandwich composite material obtained using
natural goat wool and two different polymer foam cores. In the study, a wide literature
 contribute to the literature.

2. Materials and Methods

Sandwich structures are composite materials obtained with a core and layers placed
on
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553this core. In this study, two different foam materials were used as core material: XPS 3 of 14
(extruded polystyrene) and EPS (expanded polystyrene) (Figure 1a). Fabrics woven from
goat wool were used as the layer (Figure 1b). Goat wool is a warm, soft and durable type
of fiber and can review
be usedwas in many clothing
conducted andand
veryhome
fewtextile
studiesproducts. Goat woolin
were encountered may
thehave
literature with goat
different properties than sheep wool. For example, goat wool may
wool. This study aimed to evaluate the impact and damping behaviors contain finer fibers, of goat wool
which can create a softer and
reinforced lighter fabric
composites [56]. energy levels. Another aim of the study was to com-
at different
Porous structures have many areas of
pare the behaviors of core materials use in many
withsectors
differentdue to their lightness
properties and against impact
and densities
excellent energyenergy.
absorption capabilities.
For this reason, twoFactors such as
different the air gaps contained
polystyrene-based in porous XPS (extruded
foam materials,
structures, the shape, size, and
polystyrene) anddistribution
EPS (expanded of thepolystyrene)
gaps all directly
foams, affect
werethe energy
used in theab- study. Therefore,
sorption capabilities of these structures [57]. EPS (expanded polystyrene) foam is pro-
the study will produce a material that is both cost-effective and environmentally friendly
duced by expanding and willpolystyrene
contributegranules and then shaping them in a mold. It is a light-
to the literature.
weight polymer that is usually produced for various areas of use such as foam cups, pack-
aging materials,2.and Materials andinsulation.
structural Methods XPS (extruded polystyrene) foam is a polymer
foam material produced by extrusion
Sandwich structuresunder
are high temperature
composite materialsand pressure.
obtained During
with a corethisand layers placed
process, polystyrene
on thisgranules
core. In are
thismelted and different
study, two passed through a series were
foam materials of molds
usedon the material: XPS
as core
extrusion line. These molds
(extruded allow the material
polystyrene) and EPS to (expanded
take the desired shape, and
polystyrene) the formation
(Figure 1a). Fabrics woven from
of the cell structure is ensured by adding foaming agents. As a result, a dense, lightweight,
goat wool were used as the layer (Figure 1b). Goat wool is a warm, soft and durable type
waterproof, andofinsulating
fiber and material
can be used is obtained
in many[58]. One of
clothing the
and maintextile
home benefits of EPS foam
products. Goat wool may have
is its affordability. It is also
different resistant than
properties to moisture absorption.
sheep wool. However,goat
For example, it has a lower
wool maycom-contain finer fibers,
pressive strength compared
which to XPS.
can create a softer and lighter fabric [56].

Figure 1. (a) EPS (black

Figurecolor) and (black
1. (a) EPS XPS (blue color)
color) and core
XPS material. (b)core
(blue color) Goatmaterial.
wool fabric.
(b) Goat wool fabric.

Porous structures
Figure 2 schematically illustrates have many areasprocess
the production of use in
of many sectors due
the composite to their lightness and
samples.
After cutting theexcellent energy
fabric and coresabsorption capabilities.
to the desired Factors
dimensions, the such
wool as the air
fabric wasgaps contained
glued to in porous
both surfaces ofstructures, the shape,assize,
the core materials andto
a layer distribution
prepare the of samples
the gaps using
all directly affectlay-
the hand the energy absorp-
up method. MGS tionLRcapabilities
285 epoxy of these
resin andstructures [57]. EPS
LH 285 epoxy (expanded
hardener polystyrene)
were used for sample foam is produced
production. Then,by expanding
the samplespolystyrene granules
were subjected and then
to a curing shaping
process in athem in a mold.
hot press underIt2is a lightweight
polymer
bar pressure. The curingthat is usually
process produced in
was completed fortwo
various
hoursareas
at 40of°C.
useAfter
suchtheas foam
curingcups, packaging
materials, and structural insulation. XPS (extruded polystyrene) foam is a polymer foam
material produced by extrusion under high temperature and pressure. During this process,
polystyrene granules are melted and passed through a series of molds on the extrusion
line. These molds allow the material to take the desired shape, and the formation of the
cell structure is ensured by adding foaming agents. As a result, a dense, lightweight,
waterproof, and insulating material is obtained [58]. One of the main benefits of EPS foam
is its affordability. It is also resistant to moisture absorption. However, it has a lower
compressive strength compared to XPS.
Figure 2 schematically illustrates the production process of the composite samples.
After cutting the fabric and cores to the desired dimensions, the wool fabric was glued
to both surfaces of the core materials as a layer to prepare the samples using the hand
lay-up method. MGS LR 285 epoxy resin and LH 285 epoxy hardener were used for sample
production. Then, the samples were subjected to a curing process in a hot press under 2 bar
pressure. The curing process was completed in two hours at 40 ◦ C. After the curing process
was completed, the produced test samples were cut to the dimensions in accordance with
the standards. Low-speed impact test samples were prepared in accordance with the ASTM
D3763 standard and cut to the dimensions of 100 mm in length, 100 mm in width, and
22 mm in thickness. Three-point bend test samples were prepared in accordance with the
 process was completed, the produced test samples were cut to the dimensions in accord-
ance with the standards. Low-speed impact test samples were prepared in accordance
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 with the ASTM D3763 standard and cut to the dimensions of 100 mm in length,4 of 100
14 mm
in width, and 22 mm in thickness. Three-point bend test samples were prepared in accord-
ance with the ASTM D7264 standard and cut to the dimensions of 125 mm in length, 13
ASTMmm D7264 standard
in width, and
and 22 mm cutintothickness
the dimensions of 125saw.
using a band mm in length, 13 mm in width,
and 22 mm in thickness using a band saw.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the sample production process.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the sample production process.
Impact Test and Three-Point Bending Test
Impact Test and Three-Point Bending Test
The impact test device used in the study, which operates according to the free-fall
The impact
weight principle, test device
is shown used
in Figure 3a.inThe
thestriking
study, tip
which operates
of the according
test device is in thetoshape
the free-fall
of
weight
a steel principle,
hemisphere andishas
shown in Figure
a diameter 3a.mm.
of 16 TheThestriking
weighttipof
ofthe
thestriking
test device is in in
tip used thethe
shape
tests is 6.3 kg. Tests were conducted at room temperature. The maximum drop height of the in
of a steel hemisphere and has a diameter of 16 mm. The weight of the striking tip used
mers 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW devicetheistests
1950ismm.
6.3 kg.
TheTests were conducted
experiments at room
were carried outtemperature. The 5maximum
with three different ofimpact
14 drop height
energies:
of the device is 1950 mm. The experiments were carried out with three
10 J, 20 J, and 30 J. The tests were performed according to the ASTM D3763 standard [59,60]. different impact
energies: 10 J, 20 J, and 30 J. The tests were performed according to the ASTM D3763 stand-
ard [59,60].

Figure 3. (a) Low-speed impact

Figure 3. (a) test device.
Low-speed impact(b)test
Three-point bending
device. (b) test device.
Three-point bending test device.

The three-point
Thebending test was
three-point conducted
bending using
test was a Shimadzu
conducted Autograph
using tensile
a Shimadzu de-
Autograph tensile
vice with a capacity of 10 kN. The feed rate was set at 1 mm/min. Three-point bending
device with a capacity of 10 kN. The feed rate was set at 1 mm/min. Three-point bending
tests were carried out in accordance with the ASTM D7264 standard [61,62]. Figure 3b
shows the test device used in the test and the images of the samples during the test.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Impact Experiment
Figure 4 illustrates the impact test results of sandwich composites produced with an
 Figure 3. (a) Low-speed impact test device. (b) Three-point bending test device.
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 5 of 14
The three-point bending test was conducted using a Shimadzu Autograph tensile de-
vice with a capacity of 10 kN. The feed rate was set at 1 mm/min. Three-point bending
tests were
tests were carried
carried out
out in
inaccordance
accordancewith
withthe
theASTM
ASTMD7264
D7264standard
standard[61,62].
[61,62]. Figure
Figure 3b
3b
shows the test device used in the test and the images of the samples during the
shows the test device used in the test and the images of the samples during the test. test.

3. Results
3. Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
3.1.
3.1. Impact
Impact Experiment
Experiment
Figure
Figure44illustrates
illustratesthetheimpact
impacttesttestresults
resultsofofsandwich
sandwichcomposites
compositesproduced
producedwithwithanan
EPS
EPScorecoreunder
under10, 10,20,
20, and
and 30
30 joules
joules of
of energy.
energy.In Inforce–deformation
force–deformationgraphs,graphs,deformation
deformation
isis expected
expected to to increase
increase with
with increasing
increasing impact
impact energy.
energy. UponUpon examining
examining the
the impact
impact test
test
results
resultsof ofsamples
samplesproduced
producedwithwithan anEPS
EPScore,
core,ititisisobserved
observedthatthatthethematerial
materialwithstands
withstands
the
the10 10JJ impact
impact without
withoutpenetration.
penetration. Macro
Macroimages
imagestaken takenfrom
fromthe thesample
sampleafter
afterthe
theimpact
impact
(Figure 5) reveal no damage on the upper and lower surfaces from
(Figure 5) reveal no damage on the upper and lower surfaces from the 10 J impact. the 10 J impact. However,
How-
aever,
smalla damage is observed
small damage on the core
is observed on thenear thenear
core upper thelayer
upperupon cross-section
layer inspection.
upon cross-section in-
With 20 J and
spection. With3020 J impacts,
J and 30the upper surfaces
J impacts, the upperof the samples
surfaces of are
the completely
samples arepierced, and
completely
the cores and
pierced, are damaged.
the cores are Additionally, with the 30 J with
damaged. Additionally, impact,
the damage extends
30 J impact, damageto the back
extends
surface of the sample, resulting in penetration, whereas the 20 J impact
to the back surface of the sample, resulting in penetration, whereas the 20 J impact causes causes core damage
without
core damage affecting the lower
without outer
affecting layer.
the lower outer layer.

10 joule 20 joule 30 joule

3000

2500

2000
Force (N)

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deformation (mm)
Figure4.4.Impact
Figure Impacttest
testresults
resultsof
ofEPS
EPSsandwich
sandwichcomposites.
composites.

Figure 6 depicts the impact test results of our sandwich composites produced with an
XPS core under 10, 20, and 30 joules of energy. At the 10 J energy level, a relatively low force
was applied to the sample and the maximum force was around 1000 N. No deformation
occurred and resulted in the striking tip rebounding. At the 20 J energy level, the maximum
force was around 2700 N. At this level, a sudden drop was observed after the material
reached its maximum strength. This drop indicates that damage began on the sample. As
a result of the detailed examination of the macro images in Figure 7, it was determined
that the beginning of damage was observed in the fibers in the front layer and that the
core material was significantly damaged. At the 30 J energy level, the maximum force was
around 2500 N and was slightly lower than the 20 J energy. This is thought to be due to the
perforation of the front layer. When the cross-sectional view in Figure 7 was examined, it
was seen that a larger plastic deformation was caused on the core material.
Polymers 2024,
Polymers 2024, 16,
16, 3553
x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of 14
of 14

Figure 5. Macro images of EPS sandwich composites after impact test.

Figure 5. Macro images of EPS sandwich composites after impact test.

Figure 6 depicts the impact test results of our sandwich composites produced with
an XPS core under 10, 20, and 30 joules of energy. At the 10 J energy level, a relatively low
force was applied to the sample and the maximum force was around 1000 N. No
 the maximum force was around 2700 N. At this level, a sudden drop was observed after
the material reached its maximum strength. This drop indicates that damage began on the
sample. As a result of the detailed examination of the macro images in Figure 7, it was
determined that the beginning of damage was observed in the fibers in the front layer and
that the core material was significantly damaged. At the 30 J energy level, the maximum
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 force was around 2500 N and was slightly lower than the 20 J energy. This is thought to 7 of 14
be due to the perforation of the front layer. When the cross-sectional view in Figure 7 was
examined, it was seen that a larger plastic deformation was caused on the core material.

10 joule 20 joule 30 joule

3000

2500

2000

Force (N)
1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deformation (mm)

Polymers 2024, 16, x FORFigure

PEER REVIEW
6. Impact test results of XPS sandwich composites. 8 of 14
Figure 6. Impact test results of XPS sandwich composites.
Figure 7 shows macro images of damages occurring after impact tests at 10 J, 20 J,
and 30 J energy levels of XPS core composites. When the front views are examined, it is
seen that the extent of damage in both the core material and fiber layers increases with the
increase in impact energy. While very little deformation is observed in the core material
at the 10 J energy level, no damage is observed in the fiber layers. At the 20 J energy level,
a more pronounced deformation is observed in the core material and damage occurs in
the form of a slight collapse in the front layer. No fiber breakage is observed. At the 30 J
energy level, fiber breakage occurred in the front layer and serious crushing and fragmen-
tation damage occurred in the core material. No fiber breakage or deformation was ob-
served in the lower layer. When the side views are examined, it is seen that the extent of
damage in both the core material and fiber layers increases with the increase in impact
energy.

Figure 7. Macro images of XPS sandwich composites after impact tests.

Figure 7. Macro images of XPS sandwich composites after impact tests.
Based on the impact test results conducted with 20 J and 30 J energy levels, it is
evident that XPS structures exhibit higher impact resistance. When a material
demonstrates very high impact strength and minimal deformation, it indicates a low
ability to absorb impact. For effective damping, the applied impact force should not
decrease immediately but should instead proceed horizontally, resulting in increased
deformation [52]. This approach is important for impact absorbing materials because
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 8 of 14

Figure 7 shows macro images of damages occurring after impact tests at 10 J, 20 J,

and 30 J energy levels of XPS core composites. When the front views are examined, it is
seen that the extent of damage in both the core material and fiber layers increases with the
increase in impact energy. While very little deformation is observed in the core material at
the 10 J energy level, no damage is observed in the fiber layers. At the 20 J energy level, a
more pronounced deformation is observed in the core material and damage occurs in the
form of a slight collapse in the front layer. No fiber breakage is observed. At the 30 J energy
level, fiber breakage occurred in the front layer and serious crushing and fragmentation
damage occurred in the core material. No fiber breakage or deformation was observed in
the lower layer. When the side views are examined, it is seen that the extent of damage in
both the core material and fiber layers increases with the increase in impact energy.
Based on the impact test results conducted with 20 J and 30 J energy levels, it is
evident that XPS structures exhibit higher impact resistance. When a material demonstrates
very high impact strength and minimal deformation, it indicates a low ability to absorb
impact. For effective damping, the applied impact force should not decrease immediately
but should instead proceed horizontally, resulting in increased deformation [52]. This
approach is important for impact absorbing materials because sudden deceleration can
cause high stresses on the material and cause different damages on the material. Constant
force and large deformation behavior show that an object can absorb more kinetic energy.
For example, steel materials and designs are used with large displacement capacity and
elasticity properties for vehicles to absorb kinetic energy during an accident. Thus, the
speed of people or objects is gradually slowed down and energy absorption is optimized.
When the force–time curves of the XPS structures in the experiments conducted with
20 J and 30 J are examined in Figure 8, it is evident that the curve remains horizontal after
the applied force reaches its maximum. Particularly in the experiment conducted with 30 J,
a brittle fracture (perforation) was observed in the EPS core structure, while a similar brittle
fracture (perforation) occurred in the XPS core structure between 13 and 19 times. The force
does not immediately decrease between seconds and remains constant horizontally. During
this period, the sandwich structure continues to support loads and dissipates impact energy
through damage to the upper layer. In terms of impact resistance behavior, this is highly
desirable as it leads to a softening of reaction forces (and therefore accelerations). This
observation is further confirmed by the force–deformation graph. Notably, when it reached
its peak, there was approximately 19 mm of deformation in the XPS foam, while the EPS
core structure experienced a deformation of 16 mm.
 tally. During this period, the sandwich structure continues to support loads and dissipates
impact energy through damage to the upper layer. In terms of impact resistance behavior,
this is highly desirable as it leads to a softening of reaction forces (and therefore accelera-
tions). This observation is further confirmed by the force–deformation graph. Notably,
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 9 of 14
when it reached its peak, there was approximately 19 mm of deformation in the XPS foam,
while the EPS core structure experienced a deformation of 16 mm.

Figure 8. Graphs
Graphs of impact strength of EPS and XPS cores depending on deformation and time at
different energy levels.
different energy levels.

3.2. Bending Test

The results of the three-point bending test are presented in Figure 9. Upon reviewing
these results, it becomes evident that the bending strength of the composite produced with
an XPS core is higher. In sandwich structures, the interface is a critical component that
greatly affects the mechanical properties of the sandwich composite, because the interface
provides the connection between the outer surface material and the core material. This
connection is critical for structural integrity. A strong interface connection ensures that the
loads are distributed homogeneously to the structure and increases the material strength. In
addition, the loads in the sandwich composite structure are generally transferred through
the outer surface material. The interface ensures that the loads are effectively transmitted
to the core material. This is important for optimizing structural performance and increas-
ing the load carrying capacity. When the bending test results, impact test results, and
damage images are examined, it is seen that the sandwich composite material obtained
with an XPS core and goat wool fabric generally exhibits better mechanical behavior. In
the damage mechanisms, no layer separation was observed for both cores. This shows
that the reinforcement and the cores are compatible. While the composite produced with
 The results of the three-point bending test are presented in Figure 9. Upon reviewing
these results, it becomes evident that the bending strength of the composite produced with
an XPS core is higher. In sandwich structures, the interface is a critical component that
greatly affects the mechanical properties of the sandwich composite, because the interface
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553
provides the connection between the outer surface material and the core material. This 10 of 14
connection is critical for structural integrity. A strong interface connection ensures that
the loads are distributed homogeneously to the structure and increases the material
the EPS core showed better impact resistance in the test conducted with 10 J energy, the
strength. In addition, the loads in the sandwich composite structure are generally trans-
XPS core behaved more durably in the tests of 20 J and 30 J. The mechanical properties of
ferred through the outer surface material. The interface ensures that the loads are effec-
polymer materials can change with the deformation rate. Therefore, the EPS foam behaved
tively transmitted to the core
differently material.
at low This
and higher is important
deformation forHowever,
rates. optimizing structural
the higher perfor- strength
compressive
mance and increasing the load
and density carrying
of the XPS foam capacity.
resultedWhen the results
in better bending test results, experiments.
in high-energy impact In
test results, and addition,
damage theimages
closedare examined,
pore structure itofis seen
the XPSthat
foamthe sandwich
increased composite
the energy ma- ability
absorption
terial obtained with
of thean XPS corestructure.
sandwich and goat wool fabric generally exhibits better mechanical
behavior. In the damage Closedmechanisms,
porous structures undergo
no layer elastic deformation
separation was observed under the force
for both applied to
cores.
This shows that the reinforcement and the cores are compatible. While the composite pro- energy.
them. During this deformation, the gas inside the pores compresses and stores
duced with the Elastic
EPS coredeformation allows the porous material to return to its original form and provides
showed better impact resistance in the test conducted with 10 J
minimal permanent deformation during the energy absorption process. Another important
energy, the XPS core behaved more durably in the tests of 20 J and 30 J. The mechanical
feature of closed pores is that they can distribute the force applied to them throughout their
properties of polymer
volumematerials
due to thecan change with
interconnection of the
the deformation
cell walls. The rate. Therefore,
regular the
and closed EPS of the
structure
foam behaved differently at low
pores prevents the and higher deformation
concentration rates.points,
of loads at certain However, the higher and
thus distributing com- absorbing
pressive strength and density of the XPS foam resulted in better results in high-energy
the energy homogeneously throughout the material. This situation can be explained
experiments. In by addition, the closed
the horizontal pore
course structure
of the of the XPS foam
force–deformation curve increased the energy
in the three-point bending test
absorption ability (Figure
of the9)sandwich
[63,64]. structure.

Figure 9. Three-point bending

Figure test results.
9. Three-point bending test results.

4. Conclusions
Closed porous structures undergo elastic deformation under the force applied to
In this study, the
them. During this deformation, twogas
different
insidesandwich
the pores composites
compresseswereandprepared
stores using
energy.goat wool
Elastic deformation allows the porous material to return to its original form and provides bending
fiber fabric and EPS and XPS foam cores. The impact absorption capabilities and
strength of these structures were investigated under 10 J, 20 J, and 30 J energy levels.
minimal permanent deformation during the energy absorption process. Another im-
According to the results obtained,
portant feature of closed pores is that they can distribute the force applied to them
throughout their• volume
No damage wasthe
due to observed on the upper
interconnection ofand
thelower surfacesThe
cell walls. of the EPS core
regular composite
and
material sample tested at 10 J. Only a small amount of damage was observed in the
closed structure of the pores prevents the concentration of loads at certain points, thus
part of the core close to the upper layer. The upper surfaces of the samples were
distributing and absorbing the energy homogeneously throughout the material. This
completely pierced, and the cores were damaged with the 20 J and 30 J impacts. The
sample was pierced at a 30 J impact.
• As a result of the impact tests of the sandwich composites produced with the EPS core,
in the 20 J experiment, damage was observed on the core and the upper surface where
the impact was applied, but no damage occurred on the lower surface. In the impact
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 11 of 14

test performed at 30 J, the upper layer was pierced and the core was damaged, but
there was no significant damage to the lower layer. The impact energy was absorbed
by the core and the upper layers.
• While the impact resistance of EPS foam was higher in the 10 J impact test, it was
determined that the impact resistance and absorption ability of the XPS foam were
better in the 20 J and 30 J tests. The mechanical properties of polymer materials can
vary with the deformation rate. Therefore, the EPS foam exhibited different behavior
at lower and higher deformation rates. However, due to the higher compressive
strength and density of the XPS foam compared to the EPS, it yielded better results
in high-energy experiments. Additionally, the closed pore structure of the XPS foam
enhanced the energy absorption capacity of the sandwich structure.
• The three-point bending test revealed that the bending strength of the sandwich
composite with goat wool and the XPS foam was higher.
• XPS foam, with its closed cell structure, increases its elastic deformation capacity and
provides better results in energy absorption. The regular structure of the cells ensures
that the energy is distributed homogeneously during the transfer of force. In addition,
the regular viscoelastic deformation of the XPS foam minimizes energy losses and
provides superior performance in both compression and impact tests [65,66].
• EPS foam, with its open and semi-closed cell structure, exhibits a softer structure
and low density, which causes its energy absorption capacity to be limited [67]. Due
to the weak bond between the cells, more energy is lost during deformation and its
resistance to high impact loads decreases. This situation can be clearly observed when
the deformation of the core materials (e.g., tearing or collapse) is examined during
compression and impact tests.
As a result, XPS foams exhibit more effective performance in applications where high
impact resistance and energy absorption capacity are critical, while EPS foams are preferred
in applications requiring low loads where lightness and economic use are at the forefront.
In this study, synthetic fibers were compared with synthetic foams. As a suggestion for
future researchers, research can be performed using a biodegradable foam matrix reinforced
with biodegradable fibers.

Author Contributions: E.Ş.; conceptualization, software, methodology, writing—original draft, final

review and editing, and interpretation of results. İ.Y.; formal analysis, research, and resources. Y.A.E.;
data collection, analysis, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this
published article.
Acknowledgments: This study was supported by AKÜ-BAP with project number 23.FEN.BİL.09. The
impact experiments utilized the impact test device developed under the scope of TÜBİTAK project
123M92. The authors express their gratitude to the Afyon Kocatepe University Scientific Research
Project Coordination Office and TÜBİTAK for their support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Chen, D.M.C.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Krueger, T.; Mishra, A.; Popp, A. The World’s Growing Municipal Solid Waste: Trends and Impacts.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 074021. [CrossRef]
2. Wilson, D.C.; Velis, C.A. Waste Management—Still a Global Challenge in the 21st Century: An Evidence-Based Call for Action.
Waste Manag. Res. 2015, 33, 1049–1051. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Gurjar, A.K.; Kulkarni, S.M.; Joladarashi, S.; Doddamani, S. Investigation of Mechanical Properties of Luffa Fibre Reinforced
Natural Rubber Composites: Implications of Process Parameters. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2024, 29, 4232–4244. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 12 of 14

4. Akhyar; Gani, A.; Ibrahim, M.; Ulmi, F.; Farhan, A. The Influence of Different Fiber Sizes on the Flexural Strength of Natural
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites. Results Mater. 2024, 21, 100534. [CrossRef]
5. Haghshenas, M.; Song, X.; Hasannaeimi, V.; Mukherjee, S.; Gupta, M. International Journal of Lightweight Materials and
Manufacture. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 2020, 3, 217–225. [CrossRef]
6. Siddiqui, M.A.S.; Rabbi, M.S.; Dewanjee, S. Low-Velocity Impact Response of Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites: A Compre-
hensive Review on Influential Parameters. Compos. Part C Open Access 2023, 12, 100422. [CrossRef]
7. Ozek, H.Z. Wool production steps and global trade with recent statistics. In The Wool Handbook; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston,
UK, 2024; pp. 25–74. [CrossRef]
8. Araya-Letelier, G.; Antico, F.C.; Carrasco, M.; Rojas, P.; García-Herrera, C.M. Effectiveness of New Natural Fibers on Damage-
Mechanical Performance of Mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 152, 672–682. [CrossRef]
9. Jóźwiak-Niedźwiedzka, D.; Fantilli, A.P. Wool-Reinforced Cement Based Composites. Materials 2020, 13, 3590. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
10. Tayan, M. Bursa’da Katı Atık Sorunu ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Açısından Çözüm Önerileri. Master’s Thesis, Bursa Uludag
University, Bursa, Turkey, 2007.
11. Dicker, M.P.M.; Duckworth, P.F.; Baker, A.B.; Francois, G.; Hazzard, M.K.; Weaver, P.M. Green Composites: A Review of Material
Attributes and Complementary Applications. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2014, 56, 280–289. [CrossRef]
12. Zini, E.; Scandola, M. Green Composites: An Overview. Polym. Compos. 2011, 32, 1905–1915. [CrossRef]
13. Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M.; Drzal, L.T. Sustainable Bio-Composites from Renewable Resources: Opportunities and Challenges in
the Green Materials World. J. Polym. Environ. 2002, 10, 19–26. [CrossRef]
14. Mohanty, A.K.; Drzal, L.T.; Misra, M. Engineered Natural Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites: Influence of Surface
Modifications and Novel Powder Impregnation Processing. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2002, 16, 999–1015. [CrossRef]
15. Rana, A.K.; Mandal, A.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Short Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites: Effect of Compatibiliser,
Impact Modifier and Fiber Loading. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2003, 63, 801–806. [CrossRef]
16. Jawaid, M.; Abdul Khalil, H.P.S. Cellulosic/Synthetic Fibre Reinforced Polymer Hybrid Composites: A Review. Carbohydr. Polym.
2011, 86, 1–18. [CrossRef]
17. Kulkarni, M.B.; Gavande, V.; Mahanwar, P.A.; Shah, A.R.; Shuib, R.K.; Khare, A.M.; Radhakrishnan, S. Review on Biomass Sheep
Wool–Based Polymer Composites. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2023, 14, 30961–30982. [CrossRef]
18. Gholampour, A.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. A Review of Natural Fiber Composites: Properties, Modification and Processing Techniques,
Characterization, Applications. J. Mater. Sci. 2020, 55, 829–892. [CrossRef]
19. Semitekolos, D.; Pardou, K.; Georgiou, P.; Koutsouli, P.; Bizelis, I.; Zoumpoulakis, L. Investigation of Mechanical and Thermal
Insulating Properties of Wool Fibres in Epoxy Composites. Polym. Polym. Compos. 2021, 29, 1412–1421. [CrossRef]
20. Beckman, I.P.; Lozano, C.; Freeman, E.; Riveros, G. Fiber Selection for Reinforced Additive Manufacturing. Polymers 2021,
13, 2231. [CrossRef]
21. Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Mohammadhosseini, H.; Mohamed, A.M.; Siddika, A.; Alrshoudi, F.; Alaskar, A. Utilization of
Sheep Wool as Potential Fibrous Materials in the Production of Concrete Composites. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101216. [CrossRef]
22. Fantilli, A.P.; Sicardi, S.; Dotti, F. The Use of Wool as Fiber-Reinforcement in Cement-Based Mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 139,
562–569. [CrossRef]
23. Alyousef, R. Enhanced Acoustic Properties of Concrete Composites Comprising Modified Waste Sheep Wool Fibers. J. Build. Eng.
2022, 56, 104815. [CrossRef]
24. Fiore, V.; Di Bella, G.; Valenza, A. Effect of Sheep Wool Fibers on Thermal Insulation and Mechanical Properties of Cement-Based
Composites. J. Nat. Fibers 2020, 17, 1532–1543. [CrossRef]
25. Ferreira, F.V.; Lona, L.M.F.; Pinheiro, I.F.; de Souza, S.F.; Mei, L.H.I. Polymer Composites Reinforced with Natural Fibers and
Nanocellulose in the Automotive Industry: A Short Review. J. Compos. Sci. 2019, 3, 51. [CrossRef]
26. Huda, M.K.; Widiastuti, I. Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer in Automotive Application: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 2021, 1808, 012015. [CrossRef]
27. Xiao, H.; Sultan, M.T.H.; Shahar, F.S.; Gaff, M.; Hui, D. Recent Developments in the Mechanical Properties of Hybrid Fiber Metal
Laminates in the Automotive Industry: A Review. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2023, 62, 20220328. [CrossRef]
28. Bhadra, D.; Dhar, N.R. Selection of the Natural Fiber for Sustainable Applications in Aerospace Cabin Interior Using Fuzzy
MCDM Model. Materialia 2022, 21, 101270. [CrossRef]
29. Mazlan, N.; Chai Hua, T.; Sapuan, S.M.; Ilyas, R.A. Evolution of Aerospace Composite Materials. In Advanced Composites in
Aerospace Engineering Applications; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 367–385. [CrossRef]
30. Singh, B.; Ahmad, A.; Manikandan, M.; Pai, R.; Yin, E.; Ng, K.; Yidris, N. Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites and Their Role in
Aerospace Engineering. In Green Hybrid Composite in Engineering and Non-Engineering Applications; Springer Nature: Singapore,
2023; pp. 61–76. [CrossRef]
31. Sathish, S.; Prabhu, L.; Gokulkumar, S.; Karthi, N.; Balaji, D.; Vigneshkumar, N. Extraction, Treatment and Applications of Natural
Fibers for Bio-Composites—A Critical Review. Int. Polym. Process. 2021, 36, 114–130. [CrossRef]
32. Islam, M.Z.; Sarker, M.E.; Rahman, M.M.; Islam, M.R.; Ahmed, A.T.M.F.; Mahmud, M.S.; Syduzzaman, M. Green Composites
from Natural Fibers and Biopolymers: A Review on Processing, Properties, and Applications. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2022, 41,
526–557. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 13 of 14

33. Seile, A.; Belakova, D. Propertıes of Long Flax Fiber Reinforced Nonwoven and Composite Materials. In Proceedings of the 15th
International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 25–27 May 2016; pp. 990–996.
34. Naik, V.; Kumar, M.; Kaup, V. A Review on Natural Fiber Composite Materials in Automotive Applications. Eng. Sci. 2022, 18,
1–10. [CrossRef]
35. Natrayan, L.; Ashok, S.K.; Kaliappan, S.; Kumar, P. Effect of Stacking Sequence on Mechanical Properties of Bamboo/Bagasse
Composite Fiber for Automobile Seat Cushions and Upholstery Application. SAE Tech. Pap. 2024, 1. [CrossRef]
36. More, A.P. Flax Fiber–Based Polymer Composites: A Review. Adv. Compos. Hybrid. Mater. 2021, 5, 1–20. [CrossRef]
37. Elseify, L.A.; Midani, M.; El-Badawy, A.; Jawaid, M. Natural Fiber Composite Qualification in the Automotive Industry.
In Manufacturing Automotive Components from Sustainable Natural Fiber Composites; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2021; pp. 53–65. [CrossRef]
38. Prasad, S.V.N.B.; Akhil Kumar, G.; Yaswanth Sai, P.; Basha, S.V. Design and Fabrication of Car Door Panel Using Natural
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites. In Trends in Manufacturing and Engineering Management; Springer International Publishing:
Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 331–343. [CrossRef]
39. Alam, M.A.; Sapuan, S.M.; Ya, H.H.; Hussain, P.B.; Azeem, M.; Ilyas, R.A. Application of Biocomposites in Automotive
Components: A Review. Biocomposite Synth. Compos. Automot. Appl. 2021, 1–17. [CrossRef]
40. Akampumuza, O.; Wambua, P.M.; Ahmed, A.; Li, W.; Qin, X.H. Review of the Applications of Biocomposites in the Automotive
Industry. Polym. Compos. 2017, 38, 2553–2569. [CrossRef]
41. Furtado, S.C.R.; Araújo, A.L.; Silva, A.; Alves, C.; Ribeiro, A.M.R. Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Parts for Automotive
Applications. Int. J. Automot. Compos. 2014, 1, 18. [CrossRef]
42. Agarwal, J.; Sahoo, S.; Mohanty, S.; Nayak, S.K. Progress of Novel Techniques for Lightweight Automobile Applications through
Innovative Eco-Friendly Composite Materials: A Review. J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater. 2020, 33, 978–1013. [CrossRef]
43. Maleque, M.A.; Ria Jaafar, T.; Halim, Z.; Maleque, M.; Atiqah, A.; Talib, R.; Zahurin, H. New Natural Fibre Reinforced Aluminium
Composite for Automotive Brake Pad. Int. J. Mech. Mater. Eng. 2012, 7, 166–170.
44. Pinca-bretotean, C.; Josan, A.; Kumar Sharma, A. Composites Based on Sustainable Biomass Fiber for Automotive Brake Pads.
Mater. Plast. 1964, 60, 33–41. [CrossRef]
45. Paramasivam, K.; Jayaraj, J.J.; Ramar, K.; Subramani, Y.; Ajithkumar, K.; Kabilan, N. Evaluation of Natural Fibers for the
Production of Automotive Brake Pads Replacement for Asbestos Brake Pad. AIP Conf. Proc. 2020, 2311, 040005. [CrossRef]
46. Koronis, G.; Silva, A.; Fontul, M. Green Composites: A Review of Adequate Materials for Automotive Applications. Compos. B
Eng. 2013, 44, 120–127. [CrossRef]
47. Sathish, S.; Karthi, N.; Prabhu, L.; Gokulkumar, S.; Balaji, D.; Vigneshkumar, N.; Ajeem Farhan, T.S.; Akilkumar, A.; Dinesh, V.P. A
Review of Natural Fiber Composites: Extraction Methods, Chemical Treatments and Applications. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45,
8017–8023. [CrossRef]
48. Gibson, L.J.; Ashby, M.F. Cellular Solids Structure and Propertie, Second Edition. Available online: https://books.google.com.tr/
books?id=IySUr5sn4N8C&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on
13 November 2024).
49. Howard, G.A. Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels, The Commonwealth and International Library, Structures and
Solid Body Mechanics Division, EMAS Publishing. Available online: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=2Z44BQAAQBAJ&
printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 13 November 2024).
50. Marx, J.; Rabiei, A. Study on the Microstructure and Compression of Composite Metal Foam Core Sandwich Panels. Met. Mater.
Trans. A Phys. Met. Mater. Sci. 2020, 51, 5187–5197. [CrossRef]
51. Acanfora, V.; Saputo, S.; Russo, A.; Riccio, A. A Feasibility Study on Additive Manufactured Hybrid Metal/Composite Shock
Absorbers. Compos. Struct. 2021, 268, 113958. [CrossRef]
52. Koutny, D.; Paloušek, D.; Vrana, R.; Palousek, D. Impact Resistance of Different Types of Lattice Structures Manufactured By SLM.
MM Sci. J. 2016, 2016, 1579–1585. [CrossRef]
53. Korupolu, D.K.; Budarapu, P.R.; Vusa, V.R.; Pandit, M.K.; Reddy, J.N. Impact Analysis of Hierarchical Honeycomb Core Sandwich
Structures. Compos. Struct. 2022, 280, 114827. [CrossRef]
54. Zoumaki, M.; Mansour, M.T.; Tsongas, K.; Tzetzis, D.; Mansour, G. Mechanical Characterization and Finite Element Analysis of
Hierarchical Sandwich Structures with PLA 3D-Printed Core and Composite Maize Starch Biodegradable Skins. J. Compos. Sci.
2022, 6, 118. [CrossRef]
55. Acanfora, V.; Zarrelli, M.; Riccio, A. Experimental and Numerical Assessment of the Impact Behaviour of a Composite Sandwich
Panel with a Polymeric Honeycomb Core. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2023, 171, 104392. [CrossRef]
56. Kilinc, M.; Korkmaz, G.; Kilinc, N.; Kut, D. The Use of Wool Fiber in Technical Textiles and Recent Developments. In The Wool
Handbook; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 441–465. [CrossRef]
57. Caliskan, U.; Lekesizcan, E. Experimental Investigation on Impact and After-Impact Compression (AIC) Behavior of Foam Core
Composite Panels. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2024, 43, 129–148. [CrossRef]
58. Ghoshal, T.; Parmar, P.R.; Bhuyan, T.; Bandyopadhyay, D. Polystyrene Foams: Materials, Technology, and Applications. ACS
Symp. Ser. 2023, 1439, 121–141. [CrossRef]
59. Florence, A.; Jaswin, M.A.; Pandi, A.P. Drop-Weight Impact Behaviour of Hybrid Fiber/Epoxy Honeycomb Core Sandwich
Composites under Hemi-Spherical Impactor. Fibers Polym. 2020, 21, 1152–1162. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2024, 16, 3553 14 of 14

60. Liu, X.; Saigal, A.; Zimmerman, M. Impact Behavior and Failure of 3D Printed Reinforced Composites. In Proceedings of the
ASME 2023 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 29 October–2 November
2023; Volume 4. [CrossRef]
61. Esleman, E.A.; Önal, G. Three-Point Bending Fatigue Behavior of Basalt-Carbon-Glass/Epoxy Hybrid Composites under Saltwater
Environment. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 2023, 46, 2496–2509. [CrossRef]
62. Kaboglu, C.; Ferik, E. The Effect Carbon Nanotube on Three-Point Bending Behavior of Fiber Reinforced Composite. Indian J. Eng.
Mater. Sci. 2022, 29, 71–79. [CrossRef]
63. Yu, Y.; Cao, Z.; Tu, G.; Mu, Y. Energy Absorption of Different Cell Structures for Closed-Cell Foam-Filled Tubes Subject to Uniaxial
Compression. Metals 2020, 10, 1579. [CrossRef]
64. Zhao, C.; Zhong, J.; Wang, H.; Liu, C.; Li, M.; Liu, H. Impact Behaviour and Protection Performance of a CFRP NPR Skeleton
Filled with Aluminum Foam. Mater. Des. 2024, 246, 113295. [CrossRef]
65. Zhao, C.; Goh, K.L.; Lee, H.P.; Yin, C.; Zhang, K.; Zhong, J. Experimental Study and Finite Element Analysis on Energy Absorption
of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composite Auxetic Structures Filled with Aluminum Foam. Compos. Struct. 2023, 303, 116319.
[CrossRef]
66. Reyes, A.; Børvik, T. Quasi-Static Behaviour of Crash Components with Steel Skins and Polymer Foam Cores. Mater. Today
Commun. 2018, 17, 541–553. [CrossRef]
67. Reed, N.; Huynh, N.U.; Rosenow, B.; Manlulu, K.; Youssef, G. Synthesis and Characterization of Elastomeric Polyurea Foam. J.
Appl. Polym. Sci. 2020, 137, 48839. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.