2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2021.102220
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the dynamic response of triply periodic minimal surfaces subjected to high strain-rate compression

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
22
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
4
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The mechanical properties of all samples including elastic modulus, compressive strength, and yield strength are illustrated in Figure 7 c–h. The mechanical properties of all samples are improved with the decrease in the porosities, and this is the same trend as the experimental results of other scholars [ 14 , 21 , 35 ]. The Gibson–Ashby model is the most notable and commonly accepted model for the prediction of the mechanical performance of porous scaffolds.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The mechanical properties of all samples including elastic modulus, compressive strength, and yield strength are illustrated in Figure 7 c–h. The mechanical properties of all samples are improved with the decrease in the porosities, and this is the same trend as the experimental results of other scholars [ 14 , 21 , 35 ]. The Gibson–Ashby model is the most notable and commonly accepted model for the prediction of the mechanical performance of porous scaffolds.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…For every unit cell size, the RD or volume fraction was controlled by changing the aspect ratio of the TPMS wall thickness parameter ( t) to the unit cell size ( t/l) . The wall thickness parameter t controls the TPMS surface thickness [ 34 ]. It should be noted that the wall thickness of each unit cell type is varied to meet the required RD, as TPMSs have different surface areas.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar to the Gyroid specimens, Diamond specimens at higher volume fractions also continued to deform with more fluctuations beyond the elastic region when compared to the same specimens with lower volume fractions due to higher stiffness [15]. Diamond specimens (specimen 2, 4, and 9) showed a fluctuating plateau stress from 20-22% strain up to 60-70% strain, at which point, densification starts.…”
Section: Quasi Static Compression Test Resultsmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…The difference between Gyroid specimens from Diamond and Primitive specimens is that Gyroid specimens have two layers in one unit cell, whereas Diamond and Primitive specimens have only one layer in one unit cell [19]. It is clear that with the increase of volume fractions, fluctuations in the plateau regime increase due to higher stiffness of the Gyroid specimens [15]. For Gyroid specimens, the onset stress of densification was 100 MPa for specimen 1, 190 Mpa for specimen 6, and 320 MPa for specimen 8, indicating that volume fraction increase has a great influence on the stress value at which densification begins.…”
Section: Quasi Static Compression Test Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation