Nazir A et al. (2021), Investigation of Compression and Buckling Prope...

ECB-ART-49140

Materials (Basel) 2021 May 17;1410:. doi: 10.3390/ma14102599.

Show Gene links Show Anatomy links

Investigation of Compression and Buckling Properties of a Novel Surface-Based Lattice Structure Manufactured Using Multi Jet Fusion Technology.

Nazir A , Ali M , Jeng JY .

???displayArticle.abstract???
Lattice structures possess many superior properties over solid materials and conventional structures. Application-oriented lattice structure designs have become a choice in many industries, such as aerospace, automotive applications, construction, biomedical applications, and footwear. However, numerical and empirical analyses are required to predict mechanical behavior under different boundary conditions. In this article, a novel surface-based structure named O-surface structure is designed and inspired by existing Triply Periodic Minimal Surface morphologies in a particular sea urchin structure. For comparison, both structures were designed with two different height configurations and investigated for mechanical performance in terms of compression, local buckling, global buckling, and post-buckling behavior. Both simulation and experimental methods were carried out to reveal these aforementioned properties of samples fabricated by multi jet fusion technology. The sea urchin structure exhibited better mechanical strength than its counterpart, with the same relative density almost two-folds higher in the compressive response. However, the O-surface structure recorded more excellent energy absorption and flexible behavior under compression. Additionally, the compression behavior of the O-surface structure was progressive from top to bottom. In contrast, the sea urchin structure was collapsed randomly due to originated cracks from unit cells' centers with local buckling effects. Moreover, the buckling direction of structures in long columns was also affected by keeping the relative density constant. Finally, based on specific strength, the O-surface structure exhibited 16-folds higher specific strength than the sea urchin structure.

???displayArticle.pubmedLink??? 34067583
???displayArticle.pmcLink??? PMC8156675
???displayArticle.link??? Materials (Basel)
???displayArticle.grants??? [+]

???attribute.lit??? ???displayArticles.show???

References [+] :

Almeida, Design of tissue engineering scaffolds based on hyperbolic surfaces: structural numerical evaluation. 2014, Pubmed

	Figure 1. Basic design mechanism of (a) SU structure (b) O-Surface structure.
	Figure 2. Pictorial representation of structures based on mass and wall thickness.
	Figure 3. Three specimens of each sample were printed by additive manufacturing (Multi Jet Fusion 3D Printer). (a) OS structure with constant mass; (b) SU structure with constant mass; (c) OS structure with constant wall thickness; (d) SU structure with constant wall thickness.
	Figure 4. Uniaxial compression testing setup.
	Figure 5. Compressive performance of both 3 × 3 × 3 structures under uniaxial load, (a) structure with same relative densities, (b) structure with the same wall thickness with an enlarged view of minimum.
	Figure 6. Performance of SU and OS structures with M and T at various stages under progressive compression—from left to the right side—(above), enlarged complete densification stage of each structure shown failure mechanism (below). (a) SU-M structure at 100% compression; (b) OS-M structure at 100% compression; (c) SU-T structure at 100% compression; (d) OS-T structure at 100% compression.
	Figure 7. The picture shows the powder presence in the OS-T structures after mechanical testing, (a) SU 3 × 3 × 3, (b) OS 2 × 2 × 15 structure, (c) some quantity of powder removed after compression testing.
	Figure 8. Critical buckling load of (a) same relative density column, (b) same wall thickness column.
	Figure 9. The figure (above) shows the overall buckling of each 2 × 2 × 15 structure under percentages of compression. While the (below) figures show an inner failure mechanism ((1) and (3) shows failure of SU structure while (2) and (4) shows the failure of OS structure) of the structure in which all (M and T) failed at the cell center, only OS-T is failed at the cell joints.
	Figure 10. Specific strength of 3 × 3 × 3 lattice structures, (a) same density, (b) same wall thickness, (c) combined graph of both samples.
	Figure 11. Specific strength of 2 × 2 × 15 lattice structures, (a) same density, (b) same wall thickness, (c) combined graph of both samples.
	Figure 12. Numerical compression of the 2 × 2 × 15 structure with eigenvalue buckling analysis in ANSYS static structure.
	Figure 13. Comparison of experimental and FEA critical buckling load.
	Figure 14. Experimental and finite element analysis of critical buckling load.
	Figure 15. Recommended design strategies for OS-T structure to eliminate powder trapping.