4.7 Article

Wooden mechanical metamaterials: Towards tunable wood plates

期刊

MATERIALS & DESIGN
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110952

关键词

Wooden metamaterials; FEM; Guitar

资金

  1. FONDECYT Postdoctoral [3200239]
  2. FONDECYT Regular [1190005, ,1191903, 1201311]
  3. Centro de Modelamiento Matematico (CMM) [ACE210010, FB210005]
  4. ANID-Chile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the biggest challenges in guitar-making is ensuring consistency in sound despite material variations. This study explores the use of wood-based mechanical metamaterials in the design of guitar tops, specifically examining the effect of different hole patterns on the mechanical parameters of Engelman Spruce. The research demonstrates the potential for controlling the elastic properties of perforated wood boards, not only for guitar making but also for various other purposes.
One of the biggest challenges in guitar-making is consistency: even though two guitars are made of the same tree, with the same geometry and manufactured with exactly the same techniques, small material variations intrinsic to the wood will make them sound different. We want to address this variability through the structural design of wooden plates used in the manufacture of guitar tops, developing wood-based mechanical metamaterials. By means of simulations, we study the effect of different geometric patterns of holes on the mechanical parameters of a piece of Engelman Spruce, with special emphasis on the density, the radial and longitudinal stiffness, and derived quantities. We show how one can control the elastic properties of perforated wood boards used for mechanical, acoustic and/or aesthetic purposes in general, and not only guitar making. These results could open a new era of rationally designed woodbased panels, for instrument making and beyond. (c) 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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

4.7
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