4.8 Article

A damage-tolerant, dual-scale, single-crystalline microlattice in the knobby starfish, Protoreaster nodosus

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 375, 期 6581, 页码 647-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.abj9472

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMR-1942865, CMMI-1825646]
  2. Air Force Office of Scientific Research [FA9550-19-1-0033]
  3. Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS)
  4. Department of Mechanical Engineering at Virginia Tech.
  5. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  6. NSF MRI grant [1590963]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An unusual dual-scale, single-crystalline microlattice with lattice-level structural gradients and dislocations was found in the biomineralized skeleton of the knobby starfish. This structure, aligned with the c-axis of calcite at the atomic scale, enhances the damage tolerance of the hierarchical biological microlattice, providing important insights for designing synthetic architected cellular solids.
Cellular solids (e.g., foams and honeycombs) are widely found in natural and engineering systems because of their high mechanical efficiency and tailorable properties. While these materials are often based on polycrystalline or amorphous constituents, here we report an unusual dual-scale, single-crystalline microlattice found in the biomineralized skeleton of the knobby starfish, Protoreaster nodosus. This structure has a diamond-triply periodic minimal surface geometry (lattice constant, approximately 30 micrometers), the [111] direction of which is aligned with the c-axis of the constituent calcite at the atomic scale. This dual-scale crystallographically coaligned microlattice, which exhibits lattice-level structural gradients and dislocations, combined with the atomic-level conchoidal fracture behavior of biogenic calcite, substantially enhances the damage tolerance of this hierarchical biological microlattice, thus providing important insights for designing synthetic architected cellular solids.

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