Next Article in Journal
How Non-Uniform Stiffness Affects the Propulsion Performance of a Biomimetic Robotic Fish
Previous Article in Journal
Field Traction Performance Test Analysis of Bionic Paddy Wheel and Vaned Wheel
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomimetics
Volume 7
Issue 4
10.3390/biomimetics7040186
biomimetics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Biomimicking Nature-Inspired Design Structures—An Experimental and Simulation Approach Using Additive Manufacturing

by
Arun Y. Patil
1,*,
Chandrashekhar Hegde
1,
Guruprasad Savanur
1,
Sayed Mohammed Kanakmood
1,
Abhishek M. Contractor
1,
Vinay B. Shirashyad
1,
Rahul M. Chivate
1,
Basavaraj B. Kotturshettar
1,
Shridhar N. Mathad
2,
Mallikarjunagouda B. Patil
3,
Manzoore Elahi M. Soudagar
4,5 and
Islam Md Rizwanul Fattah
6,*
1
School of Mechanical Engineering, KLE Technological University, Hubballi 580031, India
2
Department of Physics, KLE Institute of Technology, Hubballi 580030, India
3
Bharat Ratna Prof. CNR Rao Research Centre, Basaveshwar Science College, Bagalkot 587101, India
4
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Technology, Glocal University, Delhi-Yamunotri Marg, Saharanpur 247121, India
5
Department of VLSI Microelectronics, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 602105, India
6
Centre for Green Technology (CGT), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomimetics 2022, 7(4), 186; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7040186
Submission received: 19 September 2022 / Revised: 27 October 2022 / Accepted: 30 October 2022 / Published: 3 November 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Whether it is a plant- or animal-based bio-inspiration design, it has always been able to address one or more product/component optimisation issues. Today’s scientists or engineers look to nature for an optimal, economically viable, long-term solution. Similarly, a proposal is made in this current work to use seven different bio-inspired structures for automotive impact resistance. All seven of these structures are derived from plant and animal species and are intended to be tested for compressive loading to achieve load-bearing capacity. The work may even cater to optimisation techniques to solve the real-time problem using algorithm-based generative shape designs built using CATIA V6 in unit dimension. The samples were optimised with Rhino 7 software and then simulated with ANSYS workbench. To carry out the comparative study, an experimental work of bioprinting in fused deposition modelling (3D printing) was carried out. The goal is to compare the results across all formats and choose the best-performing concept. The results were obtained for compressive load, flexural load, and fatigue load conditions, particularly the number of life cycles, safety factor, damage tolerance, and bi-axiality indicator. When compared to previous research, the results are in good agreement. Because of their multifunctional properties combining soft and high stiffness and lightweight properties of novel materials, novel materials have many potential applications in the medical, aerospace, and automotive sectors.

1. Introduction

Nature is constantly subjected to external noise factors, and it overcomes the variations by tweaking and healing on its own. We, as humans, are always inspired by nature, particularly by things such as living and non-living organisms. There is inspiration drawn from both factors, namely living organisms such as animals, aquatic snails, and plant species, and non-living organisms such as ancient stones, various ores, and so on [1]. In each of these, some unique value propositions are extracted to arrive at an optimal solution to the externally caused effect. Bio-inspirations are transformed into technologies such as bullet trains in locomotion, sustainable buildings based on termite house architecture, bio-decorations focusing on ergonomic and aesthetic designs, self-healing materials in sutures, surfaces derived from shark skin to efficiently overcome deep-sea tides, and adhesion aspects derived from amphibians, to name a few. Recently, bio-inspired design structures are identifying many applications such as aerospace [2,3], the automotive sector [3,4], as well as biomedical fields [5]. Rudraksha, with its scientific name Elaeocarpus ganitrus, has unique features to protect its seeds from damage due to mechanical or thermal loads [6]. Rudraksha plants are self-reliant to protect their own seeds along with nutrition and preserve them from early germination of seeds [7]. The structure is efficient enough to behave as a hard shell when external load occurs and, at times, behave as a soft form for opening seed germination [8]. The structural evolution is so unique for Rudraksha that researchers have capitalised on the design form/function in contour building architectures and material applications [9,10,11]. This has made inroads into diversified applications in the science [12,13,14] and engineering [15,16] domains. The tortoiseshell is another such bio-inspiration model that has recently focused on hydrodynamic and strength aspects [17], stiffness of the shell [18], the behaviour of the shell for static and dynamic loading [19], comparison of micro and macro properties [20], performance of rib-suture structure [21], and load distribution of suture mechanism [22,23].
Bamboo is another such structure that came to the limelight due to its tensile strength and stiffness [24], along with plenty of fibrous members aligned uniformly [25]. Naturally, composite materials have columnar, porous, well-graded, and lightweight designs [26] that evolved over a million years into bionic structures that can be adopted for structural design. Green buildings and construction are gaining much more importance recently due to their lightweight, low shrinkage rate. Their thermal conductivity is less for bamboo than concrete, sand, and bricks [27]. Storage of carbon, high impact energies, and spectacular mechanical properties are features of green buildings when compared to timber [28]. Green buildings are biodegradable and have a fast rate of growth to maturity [29,30]. Similar to Rudraksha, walnuts are also a useful waste residue left after processing the nuts from the pulp [31]. Walnuts have antioxidant and antidiabetic properties and are preferred in food preservatives [32]. The walnut shell has cellulose 23.9%, hemicellulose 22.4%, 50.1% lignin, and 3.4% ash [33]. More than 50% of lignin will result in a hard-core structure, and a higher cellulose percentage will result in fossil fuel applications [34]. The current work aims to mimic nature-based plants and animals for structures and develop the same with a unit model to arrive at an optimal design. The emphasis is on creating similar structures with the solid modelling tool CATIA V6 and then solving for optimal conditions with the simulation tool ANSYS Workbench. However, to compare experimental and simulation results and validate the results, Rhino 7.1 includes an optimisation tool known as algorithmically generated models.
Table 1 illustrates the various generic bio-inspired design structures with their mechanical properties studied per ASTM standards. The structures are exemplified with beetle forewing, woodpecker beetle, date palm leaf, corn stalk and reed, Vero white, big sheep horn, hierarchical 3D porous materials, and functionally graded porous bones.

2. Background

The primary motivator for this entire project is the use of nature-derived structures/patterns to improve the structural rigidity or robustness of the automotive vehicle’s front, side, or rare region. There were quite a good number of bio-based designs extracted from nature. Among them, the identified design structures are critically well equipped with the strength-to-weight ratio, and long-lasting, sustainable models. These include the Rudraksh, Bambusa tulda structure, sheep horn scale, tortoiseshell structure, and walnut structure. etc.

3. Why Choose These Patterns?

Elaeocarpus ganitrus beads are the dried stones of the fruit of the Elaeocarpus ganitrus tree. These beads are hard in physical appearance and have good strength encompassed. These beads have internal hollow portions, with a varying number of hollows in different beads. Altogether this bead can be taken into the study as a bio-inspired model for its characteristics and specifications. When compared to other varieties of wood, it is extremely sturdy and develops quite quickly. Bambusa tulda is a fast-growing medium-sized tropical clumping bamboo native to the Indian subcontinent, Indochina, Tibet, and Yunnan. It is a popular and sustainable building material because of its resilience. Bambusa tulda’s micro-structure and resulting strength make it the perfect material for bikes and hundreds of other uses. When compared to wood, Bambusa tulda fibre is 2–3 times stronger than timber.
Sheep horn serves as the attack and defence weapon during combat. The sheep horn displays amazing mechanical, impact resistance, and energy absorption properties. The ridged pattern we observed on the sheep horn helps promote the properties mentioned above. Thus, we can replicate the sheep horn pattern on a cube and check for various properties such as equivalent stress, total deformation, etc. Tortoiseshell is used as a shield or guard to protect it from the worst climates and other species. The tortoiseshell displays amazing impact resistance and energy/shock absorption properties and acts as the best-covering object. The chip-like structures we observed on the shell help promote the properties mentioned above. Thus, we can replicate the tortoiseshell pattern on a cube and check for various properties such as equivalent stress, total deformation, etc. A Juglans nigra is the edible seed of a drupe of any tree of the genus Juglans. It is hard in physical appearance and has good strength. It has a varying number of hollow cross-sections inside it. This can be taken as a good bio-inspired seed for its characteristics and specifications.

4. Materials and Methods

The inspiration to work on crashworthiness for an automotive vehicle derived from two unique areas. Firstly, bio-inspired (nature-inspired) models are extracted from bio species, plant-based species, and even animal scales. Secondly, motivation from the software developed using optimal design methods, such as Altair Hyperworks, inspired solid thinking, Rhino 7 as shown in Figure 1 and Ansys workbench topology optimisation.

4.1. Bioinspired Model Selection

The entire literature review has progressed to the point where the identification of new and novel patterns for experimental and simulation study serves as the foundation for future work. The pattern of each identified model has been an inspiration for years since their inception on earth, and authors have clearly distinguished the model with its cross-section, as shown in Figure 2.

4.2. Algorithmically Generated Models

4.2.1. Algorithmically Generated Model (AGM)

Algorithmically generated models (AGMs) are Rhino 7, and Grasshopper was chosen as the software. A 10 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm cube was used, which subsequently split into nine parts of 3 × 3 mm each (Figure 3). Each mini-centre square was linked (Figure 4), and they were given a curvature of 00 to 2700 (Figure 5). This curvature was further changed as needed, with a 30 mm3 cube inserted in the surface and the curves given a thickness. The folds of dried instant noodles were the inspiration for this construction. This structure is a straightforward algorithmic manipulation of 2-D geometry.

4.2.2. Bendsoe and Sigmund Optimisation Model

A topology optimisation technique was used to produce this ideal design of an elastic structure. It entails determining the best material distribution in a computational domain that minimises compliance (or, equivalently, optimises stiffness) of the final structure while adhering to a set volume fraction restriction. The Bendsoe and Sigmund Grasshopper Workflow is shown in Figure 6.
A Bendsoe and Sigmund Optimisation on a 2.54 mm (height) and 2.54 mm (diameter) cylinder produced this result. The material used was BSH, and the loading was 100,000 kN under compression, as shown in Figure 7.

4.2.3. Lorimerlite

A topology optimisation technique was used. Show in Figure 8.

5. Solid Modelling

This section is divided into subheadings. It provides a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

5.1. Elaeocarpus ganitrus (Rudraksha) Model

The bio-inspired cross-sectional pattern of this Elaeocarpus ganitrus was modelled in Fusion360, and the pattern of 20 × 20 × 20 mm was built. The pattern is shown below in Figure 9a,b in various views.

5.2. Bambusa tulda (Indian Bamboo) Model

Because of its high tension and compressive strength, Bambusa tulda is an excellent reinforcing material. The flexural strength of the beam with Bambusa tulda reinforcement is higher, which aids in the better utilisation of Bambusa tulda. Tensile strength is greater than compressive strength. The design in Figure 10 was created with Fusion 360 software and measures 30 × 30 × 30 mm.

5.3. Sheep Horn Model

A 3D model of the cube was rendered, and the sheep horn pattern was embossed via CATIA 3D experience software. The pattern, as shown in Figure 11 is made up of 20 × 20 × 20 mm.

5.4. Tortoiseshell

A 3D model of the cube was rendered, and the sheep horn pattern was embossed via Fusion 360 software. Figure 12 was built with a 20 × 20 × 20 mm size.

5.5. Juglans nigra (Walnut)

The bio-inspired cross-section pattern of the Juglans nigra is modelled in Fusion 360, and the pattern is built with a size of 20 × 20 × 20 mm. The pattern is shown below in Figure 13.

6. Simulation Study

The simulation of the bio-inspired pattern was carried out using Ansys Workbench. The simulation was carried out for two different materials, i.e., structural steel and sheep horn. A load of 10,000 N was applied on top of the structure, and the base of the cube was fixed in all six degrees of freedom.

6.1. Elaeocarpus ganitrus Model

The bio-inspiration from Elaeocarpus ganitrus showed a lot of prominence in the structural application as the load in compression resulted in von mises stress of 657 MPa, as shown in Figure 14b. Mesh carried out with tetrahedron element made with ‘Solid 92’, a 10-noded elemental model, as shown in Figure 14a. Figure 14a infer nodes 8954 and elements 4188 were appropriate for the simulation. The element size with the H-type method is preferred to arrive at the convergence of the solution. The total deformation shows a slightly higher condition of deformation compared to the solid model. Figure 14c has the total deformation and Figure 14d deals with stress results.

6.2. Bambusa tulda Model

Bamboo or bambusa tulda is an inspiration in nature for its structural property, such as tensile strength and oxygen filter model, and has equal potential to replace the Thermo Mechanically Treated (TMT) rod in concrete columns. However, when it comes to simulation comparison, it does fit well as the replacement for structural applications, showing enormous potential with 90 MPa in Figure 15d as lower than the yield value of 110 MPa. Further, fatigue analysis is carried out for identification of the number of cycles as shown in Figure 15e for the stress-based approach with mean stress Goodman modified theory showing 2.16 × 105 cycles. The mesh generation shows nodes 13834 and elements 7743, resulting in a convergence solution. A load of 10,000 N is acting in compressive form with a fixed support at the bottom surface. A total deformation of 326.47 mm was observed in Figure 15c.

6.3. Sheep Horn Model

Sheep horn outer skin mimicked the structure of a typical kind, as shown in Figure 16a, with mesh generation of a tetrahedron element, and the load applied on top of the structure results in a total deformation of 32 mm and von mises stress of 133.7 MPa, as shown in Figure 16c, d, respectively. The outer structure mimicked the horn’s outer skin with an embossing [stiffener] kind of structure. Figure 16e shows the life cycle as 1.11 × 105, slightly higher than any typical component’s design life cycle. The factor of safety shows as 0.64 but needs to be in the range of 1.1 to 1.5.

6.4. Tortoise Model

The tortoiseshell structure has been a benchmarked model when it comes to biomimicking nature-based species. The uniqueness of the tortoiseshell structure is it builds an unconventional design structure between the carapace to vertebrae and ribs. This typical structure is built in the CATIA model and converted into neutral file format .stp for further analysis in the ANSYS workbench. In Figure 17a–g, the entire process of simulation is depicted, with as low as 0.18 mm total deformation and von mises stress of 106 MPa. The material is safe in terms of the ultimate criteria of Polylactic acid (PLA) for 3D printing conditions. The life cycle of the member is typically above the design life cycle criteria, i.e., 2.16 × 105 cycles.

6.5. Juglans regia (Walnut) Model

Another plant-based species with a unique structure and highly impact resistive model is the walnut. Juglans regia is versatile in its structure due to the pericarp to endocarp structure transformation because of internal shape and size decided by walnut seed forms. Once the walnut is extracted from the endocarp, the internal structure is mimicked for its highly compressive and impact-resistant application. In Figure 18a–d, the entire process of simulation is carried out to arrive at outcomes with total deformation observed of 707 mm and von mises stress of 472 MPa, which is higher in value for its design criteria limit.

7. Experimental Work

7.1. Algorithmatically Generated Models (AGM)

The work is partially fulfilled if experimental aspects are not dealt with in the course of the research activity. The AGM and Bendsoe and Sigmund models have been able to withstand the highest ultimate load for a typical 3D printed structure using the Rhino 7 software model. Figure 19a is inferred as a 3D printed model with 1293 lbf load-bearing capacity for ultimate force. The observations drawn in Figure 20a are the Bendsoe and Sigmund models, and have resulted in an ultimate force load-bearing capacity of 2222 lbf, which is the highest among all the cases.

7.2. Bio-Inspired Models

A typical case of the walnut structure with a 3D printed model is illustrated in Figure 21a, and adjacent to that Figure 21b shows a compression-tested and failed model of the same 3D printed model.

8. Results and Discussion

The current work focused on eight different bio-inspired patterns, and each design structure was subjected to a number of iterations to arrive at an optimal design model. The entire result section does a comparative study with respect to mechanical strength, as shown in Table 2. In the entire study, the Bendsoe and Sigmund model has equivalent load-bearing capacity compared to the 50% filled standard model.
Furthermore, the study covers the simulation study for mechanical strength, as illustrated in Table 3. These seven kinds of bio-inspired patterns are compared for total deformation, von mises and maximum principal stress theory, fatigue life cycle, and factor of safety calculation using the ANSYS workbench software tool. Among all the five bio-inspired patterns, the tortoiseshell has the lowest total deformation of 0.189 mm and maximum principal stress of 106 MPa, resulting in the most optimal model. Table 4 depicts the bamboo structure, Table 5 the Rudraksha, Table 6 the horn embossing pattern, Table 7 the tortoise vertebral structure, and Table 8 the walnut structure for three types of material study structural steel, sheep horn, and PLA. The sheep horn and structural steel material-based study revealed fatigue life cycle and factor of safety. The investigation carried out for Rudraksha with 1800–3000 N of compressive load resulted in higher specific strength in comparison to brick, concrete, and porcelain [53]. However, the shell observed with high Vickers hardness (210 ± 30 MPa) differentiated with the commercial aluminum (1100–0, annealed). Based on the observation with Rudraksha, various other shell structures such as walnuts, hazelnuts, pecans, and almonds were later investigated. In addition, the shell described above is thought to have five times lower compressive loads than Rudraksha [54,55]. However, the highest mechanical properties observed for Rudraksha have been reported to arise through numerous distinct structural features, such as highly lignified and multiple shapes of sclereids [56,57,58]. Furthermore, in the case of bamboo culms subjected to axial compressive and tangential load for a three-case failure loading of high, medium, and low conditions. The obtained results show ~99 ± 5 MPa, ~101 ± 5 Mpa, and ~100 ± 5 MPa, respectively. However, tangential loading has ~17 ± 1 MPa, ~20 ± 1 MPa, and ~16 ± 1 MPa, respectively. The results are in close agreement with Awalluddin [59]. Onche [60] developed a compressive strength model of bamboo using the empirical relation of fleck and budiansky [61]. The work focused on the modelling failure analysis of composites. Korde and west [62] depicted the kinking and the fibre buckling of fibre within a band when subjected to compressive load.

9. Conclusions

The study on seven bio-inspired models for automotive impact resistive application has resulted in the following outcomes:
  • ➢ Development of a unique process map for optimization model using the Rhino 7 software tool to realize the least material condition logic in geometric dimensioning and tolerancing.
  • ➢ Creation of a database for seven bio-inspired models for the typical mechanical property extraction such as tensile strength, flexural strength, fatigue behaviour parameters viz, life cycle, the factor of safety, damage tolerance, and bi-axiality indication.
  • ➢ Production of complex geometrical shapes using an experimental method known as fuse deposition modelling (FDM) and arriving at the outcomes to further compare experimental results with simulation results and earlier data to draw a conclusion.
  • ➢ Generation of design methods in the future in terms of designing and optimizing 3D complex models, as well as conducting a combined parametric and topology optimization scheme.
  • ➢ The maximum principal stresses for Rudraksh, Bambusa tulda, sheep horn, tortoiseshell, and Juglans nigra are 657.95 MPa, 90.89 MPa, 145.44 MPa, 106.11 MPa, and 531.11 MPa, respectively, and their fatigue life cycles were 2.16 × 105, 2.16 × 105, 1 × 106, 1 × 106 and 2.16 × 105, respectively.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisations, A.Y.P.; methodology, A.Y.P.; software, A.Y.P., C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C., V.B.S. and R.M.C.; validation, A.Y.P., C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C. and R.M.C.; formal analysis, A.Y.P., C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C., V.B.S., R.M.C. and M.B.P.; investigation, A.Y.P., C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C., R.M.C., S.N.M. and M.B.P.; resources, C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C., R.M.C. and S.N.M.; data curation, C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C., V.B.S. and R.M.C.; writing—A.Y.P., C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C., V.B.S. and R.M.C.; writing—review and editing, C.H., G.S., S.M.K., A.M.C., V.B.S., R.M.C., M.E.M.S., I.M.R.F. and M.B.P.; visualization, A.Y.P.; supervision, A.Y.P. and B.B.K.; project administration, I.M.R.F., M.E.M.S. and A.Y.P.; funding acquisition, I.M.R.F., M.E.M.S. and A.Y.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received external funding from La Fondation Dassault Systèmes. Dassault System Foundation (DSF) Project ID: IN-2021-2-02.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the La Fondation team of Dassault systems Pvt Ltd. Pune, for funding the work through the research initiative program under the grant number Dassault System Foundation (DSF) Project ID: IN-2021-2-02. The authors sincerely thank the KLE Technological University administrative members, such as Ashok S Shettar, Prakash Tewari, and B. L. Desai, for their continuous support in completing the entire research work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Benyus, A Biomimicry Primer, Biomimicry 3.8. Available online: https://asknature.org/resource/a-biomimicry-primer (accessed on 29 October 2022).
  2. Ward Rashidi, M.R.; Frank, G.; Seifert, R.; Chapkin, W.; Baur, J.; Walgren, P. Biomimicry of the armadillo carapace for the design of bending cylinders for aerospace applications. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 7–11 January 2019; p. 1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wijegunawardana, I.D.; de Mel, W.R. Biomimetic Designs for Automobile Engineering: A Review. Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng. 2021, 18, 9029–9041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xu, F.; Wang, J.; Hua, L. Multi-objective biomimetic optimisation design of stiffeners for automotive door based on vein unit of dragonfly wing. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part. C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2022, 236, 4551–4564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yadroitsev, I.; Krakhmalev, P.; Yadroitsava, I.; Du Plessis, A. Qualification of Ti6Al4V ELI alloy produced by laser powder bed fusion for biomedical applications. Jom 2018, 70, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, W.; Wang, X.Q.; Li, Z.Y. The protective shell: Sclereids and their mechanical function in corollas of some species of Camellia (Theaceae). Plant. Biol. 2011, 13, 688–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zhang, W.; Xue, Y.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, H. Sclereids are strong enough to support the delicate corollas: Experimental and computational data evidence from Camellia sinensis (L.). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 43788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Huss, J.C.; Gierlinger, N. Functional packaging of seeds. New Phytol. 2021, 230, 2154–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abeles, F.B.; Biles, C.L. Characterisation of peroxidases in lignifying peach fruit endocarp. Plant. Physiol. 1991, 95, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Antreich, S.J.; Xiao, N.; Huss, J.C.; Gierlinger, N. Cellulosic wall thickenings restrict cell expansion to shape the 3D puzzle sclereids of the walnut shell. bioRxiv 2020, 11, 390906. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dardick, C.; Callahan, A.M. Evolution of the fruit endocarp: Molecular mechanisms underlying adaptations in seed protection and dispersal strategies. Front. Plant. Sci. 2014, 5, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hayama, H.; Ito, A.; Shimada, T.; Kashimura, Y. Cellulose synthesis during endocarp hardening of peach fruit. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2006, 81, 651–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Antreich, S.J.; Xiao, N.; Huss, J.C.; Horbelt, N.; Eder, M.; Weinkamer, R.; Gierlinger, N. The puzzle of the walnut shell: A novel cell type with interlocked packing. Adv. Sci. 2019, 6, 1900644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huss, J.C.; Antreich, S.J.; Bachmayr, J.; Xiao, N.; Eder, M.; Konnerth, J.; Gierlinger, N. Topological interlocking and geometric stiffening as complementary strategies for strong plant shells. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 2004519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. van Casteren, A.; Strait, D.S.; Swain, M.V.; Michael, S.; Thai, L.A.; Philip, S.M.; Saji, S.; Al-Fadhalah, K.; Almusallam, A.S.; Shekeban, A.; et al. Hard plant tissues do not contribute meaningfully to dental microwear: Evolutionary implications. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Stayton, C.T. Biomechanics on the half shell: Functional performance influences patterns of morphological variation in the emydid turtle carapace. Zoology 2011, 114, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Damiens, R.; Rhee, H.; Hwang, Y. Compressive behavior of a turtle’s shell: Experiment, modeling, and simulation. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2012, 6, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, W.; Wu, C.; Zhang, C.; Chen, Z. Numerical study of the mechanical response of turtle shell. J. Bionic Eng. 2012, 9, 330–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Achrai, B.; Wagner, H.D. Micro-structure and mechanical properties of the turtle carapace as a biological composite shield. Acta Biomater. 2013, 9, 5890–5902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Achrai, B.; Bar-on, B.; Wagner, H.D. Bending mechanics of the red-eared slider turtle carapace. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2014, 30, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Achrai, B.; Wagner, H.D. The red-eared slider turtle carapace under fatigue loading: The effect of rib-suture arrangement. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, C53, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Magwene, M.P.; Socha, J.J. Biomechanics of turtle shells: How whole shells fail in compression. J. Exp. Zool. 2013, 319A, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, Z.; Meyers, M.A.; Zhang, Z.; Ritchie, R.O. Functional gradients and heterogeneities in biological materials: Design principles, functions, and bioinspired applications. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2017, 88, 467–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Libonati, F.; Buehler, M.J. Advanced structural materials by bioinspiration. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2017, 19, 1600787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ha, N.S.; Lu, G. A review of recent research on bio-inspired structures and materials for energy absorption applications. Compos. Part. B Eng. 2020, 181, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wegst, U.G.K.; Bai, H.; Saiz, E.; Tomsia, A.P.; Ritchie, R.O. Bioinspired structural materials. Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wegner, C.; Minnaert, L.; Ohlberger, S.; Pulka, S. Bionic structures: From stalks to skyscrapers. Sci. Sch. 2017, 12–16. Available online: http://www.voxeljet.de/en/case-studies/case-studies/bionic-structures-in-architecture/ (accessed on 29 October 2022).
  28. Jiao, J.; Tang, P. Application of bamboo in a design–build course: Lianhuadang Farm project. Front. Archit. Res. 2019, 8, 549–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. He, M.; Li, Z.; Sun, Y.; Ma, R. Experimental investigations on mechanical properties and column buckling behavior of structural bamboo. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2015, 24, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Correal, J.F. Bamboo Design and Construction; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vishal, K.; Rajkumar, K.; Sabarinathan, P.; Dhinakaran, V. Mechanical and Wear Characteristics Investigation on 3D Printed Silicon Filled Poly (Lactic Acid) Biopolymer Composite Fabricated by Fused Deposition Modeling. Silicon 2022, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Essabir, H.; Nekhlaoui, S.; Malha, M.; Bensalah, M.; Arrakhiz, F.; Qaiss, A.; Bouhfid, R. Biocomposites based on polypropylene reinforced with Almond Shells particles: Mechanical and thermal properties. Mater. Des. 2013, 51, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jahanban-Esfahlan, A.; Ostadrahimi, A.; Tabibiazar, M.; Amarowicz, R. A comprehensive review on the chemical constituents and functional uses of walnut (Juglans spp.) husk. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vishal, K.; Rajkumar, K.; Nitin, M.S.; Sabarinathan, P. Kigelia africana fruit biofibre polysaccharide extraction and biofibre development by silane chemical treatment. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2022, 209, 1248–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xiang, J.; Du, J. Energy absorption characteristics of bio-inspired honeycomb structure under axial impact loading. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 696, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hao, P.; Du, J. Energy absorption characteristics of bio-inspired honeycomb column thin-walled structure under impact loading. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2018, 79, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xiang, J.; Du, J.; Li, D.; Scarpa, F. Numerical analysis of the impact resistance in aluminum alloy bi-tubular thin-walled structures designs inspired by beetle elytra. J. Mater. Sci. 2017, 52, 13247–13260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Yu, X.; Pan, L.; Chen, J.; Zhang, X.; Wei, P. Experimental and numerical study on the energy absorption abilities of trabecular–honeycomb biomimetic structures inspired by beetle elytra. J. Mater. Sci. 2019, 54, 2193–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zou, M.; Yu, Y.-J.; Zhang, R.-R.; Wei, C.-G.; Wang, H.-X. Simulation analysis of energy-absorption properties of thin-wall tube based on horn structure. J. Jilin Univ. 2015, 45, 1863–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. San Ha, N.; Lu, G.; Xiang, X. Energy absorption of a bio-inspired honeycomb sandwich panel. J. Mater. Sci. 2019, 54, 6286–6300. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mahdi, E.; Ochoa, D.; Vaziri, A.; Eltai, E. Energy absorption capability of date palm leaf fiber reinforced epoxy composites rectangular tubes. Compos. Struct. 2019, 224, 111004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Li, Z.; Shi, C. On the crashworthiness of bio-inspired hexagonal prismatic tubes under axial compression. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2020, 186, 105893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Song, J.; Xu, S.; Xu, L.; Zhou, J.; Zou, M. Experimental study on the crashworthiness of bio-inspired aluminum foam-filled tubes under axial compression loading. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 155, 106937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, W.; McKittrick, J. Separating the influence of the cortex and foam on the mechanical properties of porcupine quills. Acta Biomater. 2013, 9, 9065–9074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ingrole, A.; Aguirre, T.G.; Fuller, L.; Donahue, S.W. Bioinspired energy absorbing material designs using additive manufacturing. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 119, 104518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, W.; Zaheri, A.; Jung, J.-Y.; Espinosa, H.D.; Mckittrick, J. Hierarchical structure and compressive deformation mechanisms of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) horn. Acta Biomater. 2017, 64, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yin, H.; Zheng, X.; Wen, G.; Zhang, C.; Wu, Z. Design optimization of a novel bio-inspired 3D porous structure for crashworthiness. Compos. Struct. 2020, 255, 112897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Xiang, X.; Zou, S.; Ha, N.S.; Lu, G.; Kong, I. Energy absorption of bio-inspired multi-layered graded foam-filled structures under axial crushing. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 198, 108216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lazarus, B.S.; Velasco-Hogan, A.; Río, T.G.-D.; Meyers, M.A.; Jasiuk, I. A review of impact resistant biological and bioinspired materials and structures. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 15705–15738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. de Oliveira, L.; Tonatto, M.L.P.; Coura, G.L.C.; Freire, R.T.S.; Panzera, T.H.; Scarpa, F. Experimental and numerical assessment of sustainable bamboo core sandwich panels under low-velocity impact. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 292, 123437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Du, Y.; Gu, D.; Xi, L.; Dai, D.; Gao, T.; Zhu, J.; Ma, C. Laser additive manufacturing of bio-inspired lattice structure: Forming quality, microstructure and energy absorption behavior. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019, 773, 138857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ramírez-Gil, F.J.; Silva, E.C.N.; Montealegre-Rubio, W. Through-thickness perforated steel plates optimized for ballistic impact applications. Mater. Des. 2021, 212, 110257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jennings, J.S.; Macmillan, N.H. A tough nut to crack. J. Mater. Sci. 1986, 21, 1517–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kaupp, G.; Naimi-Jamal, M.R. Nutshells’ mechanical response: From nanoindentation and structure to bionics models. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 8389–8400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schüler, P.; Speck, T.; Bührig-Polaczek, A.; Fleck, C. Structure-function relationships in macadamia integrifolia seed coats—fundamentals of the hierarchical microstructure. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hartung, M.; Storey, W. The development of the fruit of macadamia. J. Agric. Res. 1939, 59, 397. [Google Scholar]
  57. Strohschen, B. Vergleichende Morphologische und Anatomische Untersuchungen zur Fruchtentwicklung von drei Vertretern der Familie der Proteaceae: Macadamia Integrifolia. Ph.D. Thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, C.-H.; Mai, Y.-W. Deformation and fracture of Macadamia nuts part 1: Deformation analysis of nut-in-shell. Int. J. Fract. 1994, 69, 67–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Awalluddin, D.; Azreen, M.; Ariffin, M.; Osman, M.H.; Warid, M. Mechanical properties of different bamboo species. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 138, 01024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Onche, E.O.; Azeko, S.T.; Obayemi, J.D.; Oyewole, O.K.; Ekwe, N.B.; Rahbar, N.; Soboyejo, W.O. Compressive deformation of Bambusa vulgaris-Schrad in the transverse and longitudinal orientations. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 108, 103750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Budiansky, B.; Fleck, N.A. Compressive failure of fibre composites. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 1993, 41, 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wen, Z.; Li, M. Compressive properties of functionally graded bionic bamboo lattice structures fabricated by fdm. Materials 2021, 14, 4410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 07 00186 g001 550
Figure 1. Process map for the flow of optimisation using Rhino 7.
Figure 1. Process map for the flow of optimisation using Rhino 7.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g001
Biomimetics 07 00186 g002a 550Biomimetics 07 00186 g002b 550
Figure 2. Bio-inspired patterns; (a) Rudraksha; (b) Rudraksha cross-section; (c) Bambusa tulda; (d) Bambusa tulda front view; (e) sheep horn outer scale; (f) sheep horn outer scale; (g) tortoiseshell; (h) top view of tortoiseshell; (i) walnut; (j) walnut cross-section.
Figure 2. Bio-inspired patterns; (a) Rudraksha; (b) Rudraksha cross-section; (c) Bambusa tulda; (d) Bambusa tulda front view; (e) sheep horn outer scale; (f) sheep horn outer scale; (g) tortoiseshell; (h) top view of tortoiseshell; (i) walnut; (j) walnut cross-section.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g002aBiomimetics 07 00186 g002b
Biomimetics 07 00186 g003 550
Figure 3. The resulting 3-D geometry was 300 percent upscaled and utilised for testing.
Figure 3. The resulting 3-D geometry was 300 percent upscaled and utilised for testing.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g003
Biomimetics 07 00186 g004 550
Figure 4. Algorithmically generated model using Rhino 7.
Figure 4. Algorithmically generated model using Rhino 7.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g004
Biomimetics 07 00186 g005 550
Figure 5. Process workflow in Grasshopper.
Figure 5. Process workflow in Grasshopper.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g005
Biomimetics 07 00186 g006 550
Figure 6. Bendsoe and Sigmund Grasshopper Workflow.
Figure 6. Bendsoe and Sigmund Grasshopper Workflow.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g006
Biomimetics 07 00186 g007 550
Figure 7. Bendsoe and Sigmund Optimization Model.
Figure 7. Bendsoe and Sigmund Optimization Model.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g007
Biomimetics 07 00186 g008 550
Figure 8. Lorimerlite Grasshopper Workflow.
Figure 8. Lorimerlite Grasshopper Workflow.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g008
Biomimetics 07 00186 g009 550
Figure 9. (a) Elaeocarpus ganitrus model front view; (b) Isometric view.
Figure 9. (a) Elaeocarpus ganitrus model front view; (b) Isometric view.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g009
Biomimetics 07 00186 g010 550
Figure 10. Bambusa tulda model isometric view.
Figure 10. Bambusa tulda model isometric view.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g010
Biomimetics 07 00186 g011 550
Figure 11. Sheep horn scale.
Figure 11. Sheep horn scale.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g011
Biomimetics 07 00186 g012 550
Figure 12. (a) Tortoiseshell isometric view; (b) Cross-sectional view.
Figure 12. (a) Tortoiseshell isometric view; (b) Cross-sectional view.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g012
Biomimetics 07 00186 g013 550
Figure 13. Walnut model view.
Figure 13. Walnut model view.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g013
Biomimetics 07 00186 g014 550
Figure 14. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress.
Figure 14. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g014
Biomimetics 07 00186 g015 550
Figure 15. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress; (e) Life cycle; (f) Damage; (g) Factor of safety; (h) Biaxiality indication.
Figure 15. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress; (e) Life cycle; (f) Damage; (g) Factor of safety; (h) Biaxiality indication.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g015
Biomimetics 07 00186 g016 550
Figure 16. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress; (e) Life cycle; (f) Damage; (g) Factor of safety; (h) Biaxiality indication.
Figure 16. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress; (e) Life cycle; (f) Damage; (g) Factor of safety; (h) Biaxiality indication.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g016
Biomimetics 07 00186 g017 550
Figure 17. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress; (e) Life cycle; (f) Damage; (g) Factor of safety.
Figure 17. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress; (e) Life cycle; (f) Damage; (g) Factor of safety.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g017
Biomimetics 07 00186 g018 550
Figure 18. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress.
Figure 18. (a) Mesh generation; (b) Loads and boundary conditions; (c) Total deformation; (d) Von mises stress.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g018
Biomimetics 07 00186 g019 550
Figure 19. (a) A 3D printed AGM; (b) Tested model with failed structure.
Figure 19. (a) A 3D printed AGM; (b) Tested model with failed structure.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g019
Biomimetics 07 00186 g020 550
Figure 20. (a) Compressed model; (b) Failed model while testing.
Figure 20. (a) Compressed model; (b) Failed model while testing.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g020
Biomimetics 07 00186 g021a 550Biomimetics 07 00186 g021b 550
Figure 21. (a) Compressed Rudraksha model; (b) Failed Rudraksha model; (c) Horn mimic model.
Figure 21. (a) Compressed Rudraksha model; (b) Failed Rudraksha model; (c) Horn mimic model.
Biomimetics 07 00186 g021aBiomimetics 07 00186 g021b
Table
Table 1. Bio-inspired design models built by predecessor authors.
Table 1. Bio-inspired design models built by predecessor authors.
Sl NoTitleAuthor and YearDescription (Test Conducted)Pattern Images
1Bio-inspired columns mimicking beetle forewing structure (review paper)Xiang and Du [35], 2017The specific energy absorption of the bio-inspired multi-cell tubes (BMTs) with a length of 50 mm, a velocity of 10 m/s, and a mass of 500 kg increased by 9.79 percent and 35.97 percent, respectively, as compared to the standard A velocity of 10 m/s for impact. When compared to the traditional structure, the Specific Energy Absorption (SEA) of the BMTs (b), (c), and (d) rose by 90.56 percent, 68.33 percent, and 107.68 percent, respectively (a).Biomimetics 07 00186 i001
Hao and Du [36], 2018The length and diameter of the columns were 200 mm and 377 mm, respectively, and absorption properties improved at a velocity of 10 m/s and a mass of 500 kg.Biomimetics 07 00186 i002
Xiang et al. [37], 2017The specific energy absorption of the bio-inspired multi-cell tubes (BMTs) with a length of 50 mm, a velocity of 10 m/s, and a mass of 500 kg increased by 9.79 percent and 35.97 percent, respectively, as compared to the standard A velocity of 10 m/s for impact. When compared to the traditional structure, the Specific Energy Absorption (SEA) of the BMTs rose by 90.56 percent, 68.33 percent, and 107.68 percent, respectively (a).Biomimetics 07 00186 i003
Yu et al. [38], 2018The SEA of the bio-inspired hexagonal structures was 5× that of a corrugated square box.Biomimetics 07 00186 i004
2Bio-inspired multi-cell conical tube mimicking ox horn structure.Meng et al. [39], 2015The SEA of the bio-inspired tube was 46.2 kJ/kg, which was about 1.3 times and 1.8 times greater than that of four cell conical tube and conical tubes.Biomimetics 07 00186 i005
3Microstructure of a woodpecker’s beak to design a novel BSPHa et al. [40], 2019The SEA increased by 125% and 63.7%.Biomimetics 07 00186 i006
4Date palm leaf fibre (DPLF)Mahdi et al. [41], 2019The SEA of DPLF unidirectional reinforced epoxy composites rectangular tubes was 10.3 kJ/kg.Biomimetics 07 00186 i007
5On the crashworthiness of bio-inspired hexagonal prismatic tubes under axial compressionWang [42], 2020Bio-inspired hexagonal prismatic tubes with a height of 120 mm and with different interior cell arrangements, with a velocity of 10 m/s impacted a plate and a tube. Increasing the SEA about 2.5 times the normal hexagonal prism. This study also shows variation in EA and axial compression with respect to geometrical structures of the same and different weights.Biomimetics 07 00186 i008
6Experimental study on the crashworthiness of bio-inspired aluminum foam-filled tubes under axial compression loadingJiafeng Song [43], 2020Based on two typical straw structures (Cornstalk and Reed), four types of bio-inspired foam-filled thin-walled structures were created.Biomimetics 07 00186 i009
7Separating the influence of the cortex and foam on the mechanical properties of porcupine quillsWen Yang, Joanna McKittrick [44], 2013The experimental value of the Buckling strength of the Hystrix structure with cortices is 135.2 + 29.6 MPa or 135.2−29.6 MPa and the theoretical value is 83.9 MPa (for E = 2.6 GPa). Simiar to the Experimental Buckling strength of the Erethizon is 19.9 + 8.5 MPa or 19.9 − 8.5 MPa and the theoretical value is 26 MPa (for E = 1 GPa). The modulus for the Hystrix cortex is 2.6 times higher than for the Erethizon cortex (1 GPa).Biomimetics 07 00186 i010
8Bio-inspired energy-absorbing material designs using
additive manufacturing		Aniket Ingrole [45], 2021
(1)
Vero White Plus (VW) photopolymer Soft Matrix-rubberlike digital substance D9860-Abolone sheep horn.
RESULTS static and dynamic testing on polymer composites demonstrated a specific loss modulus of up to 0.43 km/s2, which is the greatest of any damping material. The energy absorption capacities of the structure increased by 25% and 120 percent in drop impact testing.		Biomimetics 07 00186 i011
(2)
Conch shell-additive manufacturing was employed, and the materials tested were Veromagenta Stiff and Tango BlackPlus. When compared to a single-level hierarchy and a rigid constituent, a second-level hierarchy structure improves impact performance by 70% and 85%, respectively.
Biomimetics 07 00186 i012
(3)
Dactyl club-TangoBlackPlus for Bouligand and Herringbone matrixes The results indicated a 3.4-fold increase in energy absorption between the herringbone (1.20 Jm−3) and Bouligand structures when using VeroWhitePlus for the fibres (0.35 Jm−3). The orientation and distribution of the fibres affect the composites’ impact, toughness, and compression strength.
Biomimetics 07 00186 i013
(4)
Stiff material for horns and hooves specimens with hexagonal prisms placed at 0–22.5–45 angles had a greater critical stress intensity factor and a higher critical energy release rate, according to the SENB method: FORCE OF IMPACT: 3400 N for horns and 9000 N for hooves.
Biomimetics 07 00186 i014
(5)
Beetle electron-DSM Somos 14120 resin compression testing to determine the structure’s deformation modes and energy absorption capability. BEP has a higher compressive strength (15%), deformation (63%), and energy absorption (115%) than HP, which has a specific energy absorption of 9.16 103 J/kg and an energy absorption of 154.80 J.
Biomimetics 07 00186 i015
9Hierarchical structure and compressive deformation mechanisms of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) hornWei Huang [46], 2017Impact force = 3400 N, velocity 9 m/s strain rate of order-102–103.
Young’s modules 0.65 to 2.2 GPa for X-ray-size 2 × 2 × 4 mm3. From impact area, impact area thickness 2 cm, inner thickness 1 cm.
Optical and scanning electron microscopy imaging and compression test-size-4 × 4 × 4 mm3, 5 mm from import surface.
Transmission electron microscopy imaging -size 2 × 1 × 1 mm3.
Young’s modulus increases in the day state 2–3 times when the strain rate changes from 1 × 103/s to 4 × 103/s. Radial direction (impact direction) was found to have the highest strength and energy absorption, inspired by a design of recoverable energy-absorbing material.		Biomimetics 07 00186 i016
10Design optimisation of a novel bio-inspired 3D porous structure for crashworthinessHanfeng Yin [47], 2020Four types of H3DP [Hierarchical 3D porous] porous material are popular types of materials and are lightweight, have excellent sound absorption, and have high impact energy absorption. Based on the quasistatic simulation, structures with different lattice configurations ranging from 4 × 4 × 4 to 7 × 7 × 7 tessellating cells are investigated. An Instron 8802 universal test machine is used to perform the quasistatic compression test on the H3DP structure. The bottom plate simply supports the lattice samples, while the upper platform is crushed at a rate of 0.2 mm/min.Biomimetics 07 00186 i017
11Energy absorption of bio-inspired multi-layered graded foam-filled structures under axial crushingXinmei Xiang [48], 2020Model-1 with graded foam filler exhibited larger SEA (specific energy absorption). Model-1 (250-400-550) is considered the best design for the foam-filled structures investigated in this study. Values: EA = 2590.2 J, CFE = 66%.Biomimetics 07 00186 i018
12A review of the impact-resistant biological and
bioinspired materials and structures		Benjamin S. Lazarus [49], 2020Keratin scutes easily delaminate and deflect cracks, toughening the shell. Young’s modulus of these layers are about 20 GPa and 1 GPa, respectively. On the human skull, shear punch tests were performed at strain rates of 0.001 s−1 and 0.1 s−1. The skull of a woodpecker. Conch shells dissipate energy as well by causing cracks to meander. The conch shell has a 67 percent higher fracture strength when tested at a strain rate of 103 s−1 than when tested at a strain rate of 104 s−1. The third-order lamellae fracture and splinter away under impact loading.Biomimetics 07 00186 i019
13Experimental and numerical assessment of sustainable bamboo core sandwich panels under low-velocity impactLívia Ávila de Oliveir [50], 2021Sandwich panels were subjected to a drop test with a 16 mm diameter hemispherical impactor. A mass of 9.46 kg is dropped at 3.25 m/s on the sandwich panels. A finite element model of the drop test simulation was also conducted at 20-Epoxy-Max load (kN) = 4.5, total deflection (mm) = 22.80, 20-Biopolymer-Max load (kN) = 6.29, and total deflection(mm) = 11.49.Biomimetics 07 00186 i020
14Laser additive manufacturing of bio-inspired lattice structure. Forming
quality, microstructure, and energy absorption behaviour		Yuexin Du [51], 2019AlSi10Mg alloy powder was used as the raw material in this study, Fmax (2.95 kN) with a displacement value (1.18 mm) at 375 W. As the laser power increased to 400 W or 450 W, the accumulated displacement drastically decreased. At the end of stage II, the force dropped sharply accompanying the failure of a certain strut occurred. Biomimetics 07 00186 i021
15Through-thickness perforated steel plates optimised for ballistic impact
applications		Francisco Javier Ramírez-Gil [52], 2021
(1)
The weight of steel plates is reduced by introducing holes through the thickness.
(2)
Two different design methodologies are followed: heuristic and systematic.
(3)
The heuristic method uses bioinspired principles of functionally graded porous bones.
Biomimetics 07 00186 i022
Table
Table 2. Generic comparison of a few cases for mechanical strength.
Table 2. Generic comparison of a few cases for mechanical strength.
PatternUltimate Force (lbf)Ultimate Stress (psi)
Standard (50% fill)2381.122173.28
Rudraksh789.13720.25
AGM1293.39-
Bendsoe and Sigmund model2222.42707.42
Table
Table 3. Simulation study comparison for sheep horn material.
Table 3. Simulation study comparison for sheep horn material.
PatternTotal Deformation (mm)Maximum Principal Stress (MPa)Fatigue Life CycleFactor of Safety
Rudraksh1129.3657.952.16 × 1050.09
Bambusa tulda326.4790.892.16 × 1050.07
Sheep horn0.338145.441 × 1060.593
Tortoiseshell0.189106.111 × 1060.058
Juglans nigra707.66531.112.16 × 1050.009
Table
Table 4. Simulation study comparison for bamboo structure.
Table 4. Simulation study comparison for bamboo structure.
TypeMaterial
Structural SteelSheep HornPLA
Total deformation0.010273 mm326.47 mm0.68835 mm
Equivalent stress92.83 mm90.896 MPa95.387
Fatigue lifeMax − 1 × 106
Min − 0		Max − 2.16 × 105
Min − 0
Fatigue Damage1532.11 × 1032
Fatigue safety factorMax 15
Min 0.92857		Max 10.08
Min 0.07041
Biaxiality indicationMax 0.97225
Min − 0.97544		Max 0.96359
Min − 0.99996
Table
Table 5. Simulation study comparison for Rudraksha structure.
Table 5. Simulation study comparison for Rudraksha structure.
ResultsStructural SteelSheep HornPLA
Total Deformation0.036271 mm1129.3 mm2.6932 mm
Equivalent Stress659.08 MPa657.95 MPa1049.4 MPa
Life1 × 106 − Max
703.46 − Min		2.16 × 105 − Max
0 − Min
Damage1.42 × 106 − Max
1000 − Min		1 × 1032 − Max
4629.6 − Min
Safety15 − Max
0 − Min		15 − Max
0 − Min
Biaxiality Indication0.988 − Max
−0.99 − Min		0.98822 − Max
− 0.99967 − Min
Table
Table 6. Simulation study comparison for horn structure.
Table 6. Simulation study comparison for horn structure.
ResultsStructural SteelSheep HornPLA
Total deformation (mm)0.0112450.338090.711
Equivalent stress (Mpa)130.7145.44172.49
Strain Energy (mJ)0.4398113.714
LifeMax: 1 × 106
Min: 1.281 × 105		Max: 1 × 106
Min: 82,488
DamageMax: 8209.6
Min: 1000		Max: 12,133
Min: 1000
Safety factorMax: 15
Min: 0		Max: 15
Min: 0
Biaxiality IndicatorMax: 0.9859
Min: − 0.999		Max: 0.98333
Min: −0.999
Table
Table 7. Simulation study comparison for tortoise vertebral structure.
Table 7. Simulation study comparison for tortoise vertebral structure.
ResultsSheep HornStructural SteelPLA
Total deformation (mm)0.189366.1907 × 10−60.41234
Equivalent stress (MPa)106.111.2653 × 10889.819
LifeMax: 2.16 × 105
Min: 0		1 × 106
1.3698 × 105
DamageMax: 1 × 1032
Min: 4629.6		7300.1
1000
Safety factorMax: 15
Min: 0.06		15
0.6
Table
Table 8. Simulation study comparison for walnut structure.
Table 8. Simulation study comparison for walnut structure.
ResultsSheep HornStructural SteelPLA
Total deformation (mm)0.034741 mm0.08722 mm2.3286 mm
Equivalent stress (MPa)1680.1 MPa1424.5 MPa1690.6 MPa
LifeMax 1 × 106
Min (0 cycles)		Max 0
Min 0
Damage1.5041 × 1071 × 1032
Safety factorMax 15Max 15
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Patil, A.Y.; Hegde, C.; Savanur, G.; Kanakmood, S.M.; Contractor, A.M.; Shirashyad, V.B.; Chivate, R.M.; Kotturshettar, B.B.; Mathad, S.N.; Patil, M.B.; et al. Biomimicking Nature-Inspired Design Structures—An Experimental and Simulation Approach Using Additive Manufacturing. Biomimetics 2022, 7, 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7040186

AMA Style

Patil AY, Hegde C, Savanur G, Kanakmood SM, Contractor AM, Shirashyad VB, Chivate RM, Kotturshettar BB, Mathad SN, Patil MB, et al. Biomimicking Nature-Inspired Design Structures—An Experimental and Simulation Approach Using Additive Manufacturing. Biomimetics. 2022; 7(4):186. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7040186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Patil, Arun Y., Chandrashekhar Hegde, Guruprasad Savanur, Sayed Mohammed Kanakmood, Abhishek M. Contractor, Vinay B. Shirashyad, Rahul M. Chivate, Basavaraj B. Kotturshettar, Shridhar N. Mathad, Mallikarjunagouda B. Patil, and et al. 2022. "Biomimicking Nature-Inspired Design Structures—An Experimental and Simulation Approach Using Additive Manufacturing" Biomimetics 7, no. 4: 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7040186

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop