journal article·2023-03

Impact Resistance of 3D Cellular Structures for Protective Clothing

Saadullah Channa, Danmei Sun, George K. Stylios

Advanced Engineering Materials· Volume 25· Issue 6
Publisher page

Abstract

3D‐printed cellular structures have attracted increased attention in recent years due to the many advantages of additive manufacturing technology. However, much of the current research is focused on the use of rigid or combined rigid and soft materials. Herein, the impact resistance of 3D cellular structures manufactured by stereolithography (SLA) additive manufacturing technique using flexible photopolymer resin is investigated. Six different types of cellular structures are designed and manufactured by a photo‐polymerizing 3D printer using two different types of flexible photo‐curable resin materials. The resistance capacity of these structures against impact force is examined experimentally using a customized free fall “impact drop test”, where impact forces transmitted through the impacted structures are captured using a capacitive force sensor underneath the structure, in the form of a real‐time impact force versus time plot. The results indicate that the reentrant honeycomb (AU) cellular structure experienced the lowest peak impact force 2.73 and 2.64 N made from Liqcreate and Prusa flexible materials, respectively, and it has the best impact resistance performance among all developed 3D structures.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Advanced Materials and Mechanics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Textiles and Design Heriot-Watt University Galashiels TD1 3HF UK

Department of Garment Manufacturing National Textile University Faisalabad 37610 Pakistan

Funding

Higher Education Commision, Pakistan

References (17)

Show source-provided references
1. Laing R. M. · 2005 · 233
2. 10.1021/acsomega.7b0024210.1021/acsomega.7b00242 ↗
3. 10.1108/RJTA-16-03-2012-B00210.1108/RJTA-16-03-2012-B002 ↗
4. Watkins S. M. · 1995
5. 10.1201/b19359-910.1201/b19359-9 ↗
6. Tyler D. J. · 2016
7. 10.1002/adem.20200031210.1002/adem.202000312 ↗
8. 10.3390/polym1006062910.3390/polym10060629 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.10777910.1016/j.matdes.2019.107779 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.01.09810.1016/j.matdes.2017.01.098 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.00210.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.002 ↗
12. K. K.Saxena E. P.Calius R.Das inASME 2016 Int. Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Volume 9: Mechanics of Solids Structures and Fluids; NDE Diagnosis and Prognosis Phoenix AZ V009T12A0632016 https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2016-67556.10.1115/IMECE2016-67556 ↗
13. Xu H. · ACM Trans. Graphics · 2015 · 34 · 1
14. 10.1002/adem.20130003010.1002/adem.201300030 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.11.03310.1016/j.matdes.2014.11.033 ↗
16. Intecfoams https://www.intecfoams.co.uk/foams/eva-foam/(accessed: May 2022).
17. 10.1088/1361-665X/aaa3cf10.1088/1361-665X/aaa3cf ↗