4.7 Article

Comparison of different quasi-static loading conditions of additively manufactured composite hexagonal and auxetic cellular structures

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.108054

Keywords

Auxetic; Cellular structures; Additive manufacturing; 3D printing; Energy absorption; Composite

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the compressive energy absorption characteristics of three cellular structures under in-plane and axial loading conditions. The double arrowhead (auxetic) structure shows superior energy absorption performance. For the carbon fiber reinforced material, Onyx, the specific energy absorbed by the double arrowhead geometry is 125% and 244% greater than the hexagonal (non-auxetic) and re-entrant (auxetic) structures respectively.
Auxetic cellular structures have the potential to revolutionise sandwich panel cores due to their potential su- perior energy absorption capability. Because of their negative Poisson's ratio, auxetics behave counterintuitively and contract orthogonally under an applied compressive force, resulting in a densification of material in the vicinity of the applied load. This study investigates three cellular structures and compares their compressive energy absorbing characteristics under in-plane and axial loading conditions. Three unit cell topologies are considered; a conventional hexagonal, re-entrant and double arrowhead auxetic structures. The samples were additively manufactured using two different materials, a conventional Nylon and a carbon fibre reinforced composite alternative (Onyx). Finite element simulations are experimentally validated under out of and in-plane loading conditions and the double arrowhead (auxetic) structure is shown to exhibit comparatively superior energy absorption. For the carbon fibre reinforced material, Onyx, the specific energy absorbed by the double arrowhead geometry was 125% and 244% greater than the hexagonal (non-auxetic) and re-entrant (auxetic) structures respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available