4.8 Article

Experimental and computational evaluation of tensile properties of additively manufactured hexa- and tetrachiral auxetic cellular structures

期刊

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2021.102022

关键词

Chiral auxetic structure; Selective laser melting; Microstructure; Experimental testing; Computational simulations

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [Z2-2648, P2-0063]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The auxetic cellular structures with tetrachiral and hexachiral geometries were fabricated using LPBF technology from two different materials, and their mechanical properties were experimentally determined. Results showed that hexachiral structures have a more ductile response compared to tetrachiral structures.
The auxetic cellular structures with two different chiral geometries (tetrachiral and hexachiral) were fabricated using laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) technology from two different materials (aluminium alloy AlSi10Mg and stainless steel AISI 316L). The specimen's microstructure, porosity and surface texture were observed by X-ray diffraction, optical and electron microscopy and micro-computed tomography. The mechanical properties of all specimens were determined experimentally with a simple tensile test. The results show that hexachiral and tetrachiral auxetic structures have similar initial stiffness, whereas the former provides a more ductile response with more than four times larger failure strain. The AISI316L steel provides for a much more ductile response than AlSi10Mg at comparable normalised load-carrying capability. The samples' deformation behaviour was analysed with the digital image correlation and tracking method, where it was shown that hexachiral samples exhibit a lower Poisson's ratio. The experimental results were used to validate the corresponding computational models, providing a more detailed analysis of deformation behaviour. They allow for cost-effective parametric studies and the development of new optimised chiral geometries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据