Synchrotron CT imaging of lattice structures with engineered defects
Source abstract
Abstract
Understanding mechanical failure, crack propagation, and compressive behavior at the micrometer scale is essential for tailoring material properties for structural performance in cellular materials. Typically, modeling of traditional polymer foam materials is clouded by the lack of control in material morphology and its inherent stochastic structure. Additive manufacturing with sub-micrometer resolution provides a direct path for experimenters to specifically tailor structures needed by modelers to explicitly probe mechanical performance. Using laboratory-based 3D X-ray computed tomographic imaging (CT), the examination of deformation and damage provides a critical path to understand how these soft materials behave. Additionally, synchrotron CT yields realistic information at higher strain rates to directly validate the robustness of our finite element modeling. For this study, nanolithographic printing was employed to generate a series of engineered lattices with increasing levels of defects through the random removal of ligaments. These structures were mechanically tested and imaged with laboratory-based microCT. Additionally, synchrotron experiments were conducted in which the structures were imaged in 3D at 14 Hz during compression at a 0.4 s−1 strain rate. These 3D images show the changes in the structure as the ligaments bend, buckle and fracture in real time. This technique provides a robust framework for developing our methodologies and future exploration of engineered structures.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Cellular and Composite Structures · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Wallach JC, Gibson LJ (2001) Defect sensitivity of a 3D truss material. Scripta Mater 45(6):639–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6462(01)01073-910.1016/S1359-6462(01)01073-9 ↗
2. Patterson BM, Henderson K, Gilbertson RD, Tornga S, Cordes NL, Chavez ME, Smith Z (2014) Morphological and performance measures of polyurethane foams using X-ray CT and mechanical testing. Microsc Microanal 95:18–26
3. Dattelbaum DM, Coe JD, Kiyanda CB, Gustavsen RL, Patterson BM (2014) Reactive, anomalous compression in shocked polyurethane foams. J Appl Phys 115(174908):1. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.487547810.1063/1.4875478 ↗
4. Ma Y, Su X, Pyrz R, Rauhe JC (2013) A novel theory of effective mechanical properties of closed-cell foam materials. Acta Mech Solida Sin 26(6):559–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-9166(14)60001-X10.1016/S0894-9166(14)60001-X ↗
5. Gaitanaros S, Kyriakides S, Kraynik AM (2012) On the crushing response of random open-cell foams. Int J Solids Struct 49(19–20):2733–2743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.03.00310.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.03.003 ↗
6. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1997) Cellular solids: structure and properties. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9781139878326 ↗
7. Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D (2018) Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B Eng 143:172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.01210.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012 ↗
8. Vaezi M, Seitz H, Yang S (2013) A review on 3D micro-additive manufacturing technologies. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67(5):1721–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4605-210.1007/s00170-012-4605-2 ↗
9. Tumbleston JR, Shirvanyants D, Ermoshkin N, Janusziewicz R, Johnson AR, Kelly D, Chen K, Pinschmidt R, Rolland JP, Ermoshkin A, Samulski ET, DeSimone JM (2015) Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa239710.1126/science.aaa2397 ↗
10. Walker DA, Hedrick JL, Mirkin CA (2019) Rapid, large-volume, thermally controlled 3D printing using a mobile liquid interface. Science 366(6463):360–364. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax156210.1126/science.aax1562 ↗
11. Zheng X, Lee H, Weisgraber TH, Shusteff M, Deotte JR, Duoss E, Kuntz JD, Biener MM, Kucheyev SO, Ge Q (2014) Ultra-light, ultra-stiff mechanical metamaterials. Science 344(6190):1373–137710.1126/science.1252291 ↗
12. Montemayor LC, Meza LR, Greer JR (2014) Design and fabrication of hollow rigid nanolattices via two-photon lithography. Adv Eng Mater 16(2):184–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.20130025410.1002/adem.201300254 ↗
13. Carlton HD, Lind J, Messner MC, Volkoff-Shoemaker NA, Barnard HS, Barton NR, Kumar M (2017) Mapping local deformation behavior in single cell metal lattice structures. Acta Mater 129:239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2017.02.02310.1016/j.actamat.2017.02.023 ↗
14. Ladd AJC, Kinney JH (1997) Elastic constants of cellular structures. Phys A 240(1):349–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(97)00158-110.1016/S0378-4371(97)00158-1 ↗
15. Ladd AJC, Kinney JH, Haupt DL, Goldstein SA (1998) Finite-element modeling of trabecular bone: comparison with mechanical testing and determination of tissue modulus. J Orthop Res 16(5):622–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.110016051610.1002/jor.1100160516 ↗
16. Patterson BM, Cordes NL, Henderson K, Williams J, Stannard T, Singh SS, Ovejero AR, Xiao X, Robinson M, Chawla N (2016) In situ X-ray synchrotron tomographic imaging during the compression of hyper-elastic polymeric materials. J Mater Sci 51(1):171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-015-9355-810.1007/s10853-015-9355-8 ↗
17. Sercombe TB, Xu X, Challis VJ, Green R, Yue S, Zhang Z, Lee PD (2015) Failure modes in high strength and stiffness to weight scaffolds produced by selective laser melting. Mater Des 67:501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.06310.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.063 ↗
18. Walley SM, Field JE (1994) Strain rate sensitivity of polymers in compression from low to high rates. Dymat J 1(3):211–227
19. Shan G-F, Yang W, Yang M-b, Xie B-h, Feng J-m, Fu Q (2007) Effect of temperature and strain rate on the tensile deformation of polyamide 6. Polymer 48(10):2958–2968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2007.03.01310.1016/j.polymer.2007.03.013 ↗
20. Tucker MT, Horstemeyer MF, Whittington WR, Solanki KN, Gullett PM (2010) The effect of varying strain rates and stress states on the plasticity, damage, and fracture of aluminum alloys. Mech Mater 42(10):895–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2010.07.00310.1016/j.mechmat.2010.07.003 ↗
21. Chen Y, Clausen AH, Hopperstad OS, Langseth M (2009) Stress–strain behaviour of aluminium alloys at a wide range of strain rates. Int J Solids Struct 46(21):3825–3835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.07.01310.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.07.013 ↗
22. Sun PL, Cerreta EK, Gray GT III, Bingert JF (2006) The effect of grain size, strain rate, and temperature on the mechanical behavior of commercial purity aluminum. Metall Mater Trans A 37(10):2983–2994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-006-0180-110.1007/s11661-006-0180-1 ↗
23. Song B, Lu W-Y, Syn C, Chen W (2009) The effects of strain rate, density, and temperature on the mechanical properties of polymethylene diisocyanate (PMDI)-based rigid polyurethane foams during compression. J Mater Sci 44(2):351–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-008-3105-010.1007/s10853-008-3105-0 ↗
24. Zaldivar RJ, Witkin DB, McLouth T, Patel DN, Schmitt K, Nokes JP (2017) Influence of processing and orientation print effects on the mechanical and thermal behavior of 3D-printed ULTEM® 9085 material. Addit Manuf 13:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.11.00710.1016/j.addma.2016.11.007 ↗
25. Liljenhjerte J, Upadhyaya P, Kumar S (2016) Hyperelastic strain measurements and constitutive parameters identification of 3D printed soft polymers by image processing. Addit Manuf 11:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2016.03.00510.1016/j.addma.2016.03.005 ↗
26. Mertens JCE, Henderson K, Cordes NL, Pacheco R, Xiao X, Williams JJ, Chawla N, Patterson BM (2017) Analysis of thermal history effects on mechanical anisotropy of 3D-printed polymer matrix composites via in situ X-ray tomography. J Mater Sci 52(20):12185–12206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1339-410.1007/s10853-017-1339-4 ↗
27. Wang B, Sun L, Pan B (2019) Mapping internal deformation fields in 3D printed porous structure with digital volume correlation. Polym Test 78:105945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.10594510.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.105945 ↗
28. Gardan J, Makke A, Recho N (2018) Improving the fracture toughness of 3D printed thermoplastic polymers by fused deposition modeling. Int J Fract 210(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0257-410.1007/s10704-017-0257-4 ↗
29. Patterson BM, Cordes NL, Henderson K, Xiao X, Chawla N (2018) Data challenges of in situ X-ray tomography for materials discovery and characterization. In: Lookman T, Eidenbenz S, Alexander F, Barnes C (eds) Materials discovery and design by means of data science and optimal learning, vol 280. Springer, Berlin, pp 130–158
30. Walters DJ, Luscher DJ, Yeager JD, Patterson BM (2018) Cohesive finite element modeling of the delamination of HTPB binder and HMX crystals under tensile loading. Int J Mech Sci 140:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.02.04810.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.02.048 ↗
31. Manner VW, Yeager JD, Patterson BM, Walters DJ, Stull JA, Cordes NL, Luscher DJ, Henderson KC, Schmalzer AM, Tappan BC (2017) In situ imaging during compression of plastic bonded explosives for damage modeling. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1006063810.3390/ma10060638 ↗
32. Maire E, Le Bourlot C, Adrien J, Mortensen A, Mokso R (2016) 20 Hz X-ray tomography during an in situ tensile test. Int J Fract 200(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-016-0077-y10.1007/s10704-016-0077-y ↗
33. Maire E, Withers PJ (2014) Quantitative X-ray tomography. Int Mater Rev 59(1):1–43. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743280413Y.000000002310.1179/1743280413Y.0000000023 ↗
34. Gursoy D, De Carlo F, Xiao X, Jacobsen C (2014) TomoPy: a framework for the analysis of synchrotron tomographic data. J Synchrotron Radiat 21(5):1188–1193. https://doi.org/10.1107/S160057751401393910.1107/S1600577514013939 ↗
35. Arcadu F, Marone F, Stampanoni M (2017) Fast iterative reconstruction of data in full interior tomography. J Synchrotron Radiat 24(1):205–219. https://doi.org/10.1107/S160057751601579410.1107/S1600577516015794 ↗
36. Cognoni P, Callieri M, Corsini M, Dellepiane M, Ganovelli F, Ranzuglia G (2008) MeshLab: an open-source mesh processing tool. In: Sixth eurographics Italian chapter conference, Pisa, Italy, pp 129–136
37. Youssef S, Maire E, Gaertner R (2005) Finite element modelling of the actual structure of cellular materials determined by X-ray tomography. Acta Mater 53(3):719–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2004.10.02410.1016/j.actamat.2004.10.024 ↗
38. Lewis M (2016) A robust, compressible, hyperelastic constitutive model for the mechanical response of foamed rubber. Tech Mech 36(1–2):88–101
39. Burteau A, N’Guyen F, Bartout JD, Forest S, Bienvenu Y, Saberi S, Naumann D (2012) Impact of material processing and deformation on cell morphology and mechanical behavior of polyurethane and nickel foams. Int J Solids Struct 49(19–20):2714–2732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.05.02610.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.05.026 ↗
40. Kim B, Lee SB, Lee J, Cho S, Park H, Yeom S, Park SH (2012) A comparison among Neo-Hookean model, Mooney-Rivlin model, and Ogden model for chloroprene rubber. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 13(5):759–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12541-012-0099-y10.1007/s12541-012-0099-y ↗
41. Christensen R (2012) Theory of viscoelasticity: an introduction. Elsevier, Amsterdam