4.7 Article

Auxetic response of additive manufactured cubic chiral lattices at large plastic strains

期刊

MATERIALS & DESIGN
卷 233, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112207

关键词

Auxetic lattices; Chiral lattices; Additive manufacturing; X-ray computed tomography; FEA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the compressive performance of auxetic cubic chiral structures, finding that energy absorption and auxeticity are dependent on the relative density of the constitutive struts. The research also reveals that in the plastic regime, the auxeticity decreases with relative density.
Auxetic lattices exhibit a negative Poisson's ratio and excellent energy absorption capability. Here, we investigate the compressive performance of auxetic cubic chiral structures. By utilising finite element analysis (FEA) verified by interrupted mechanical testing and x-ray computed tomography, the auxeticity and failure mechanisms at the large strain deformation have been evaluated. The FEA results show that the initial elastic-plastic response agrees with the prediction of the classic scaling laws of bending-dominated lattices. At increasing plastic deformation, the energy absorption and auxeticity are dependent on relative density, i.e., the slenderness ratio, of the constitutive struts. In the plastic regime, the auxeticity decreases with relative density. Ductile fracture precedes densification in relative densities above 1.2%, thus dictating a new scaling law for the variation of the maximum energy absorbed with density. The numerical model predicts the scaling of mechanical properties, fracture strains, and energy absorption of the constitutive unit cell and finite-sized specimens in the relative density ranging from 0.3% to6.5%. However, to accurately model the failure mechanism, geometrical imperfections should be included. The scaling laws derived from this work may aid the design of next generation auxetic lattices with tailored mechanical properties.

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