journal article·2020-09-01

Experimental advancement of filled wood shafts from an inspiration by bone

Ibrahim Kutay Yilmazcoban

Emerging Materials Research· Volume 9· Issue 3
Publisher page

Abstract

Considering the enduring mechanical behavior of the lattice structure and compact part of the bone, an analogy between samples made of easily found beechwood and the metacarpal bones of lambs was compared to differentiate their mechanical behaviors, and moreover, to facilitate the beech patterns in various applications with the help of experiments. During the experimental process, beechwood shafts with five different diameters and the same length were tested under three-point bending conditions. Bores inside the beech samples represent the marrow aperture, while the applied polystyrene foam inside the beech samples represents the volume of marrow in a bone. The proposed study presents an investigation of the filled beech shafts by way of three-point bending tests with the biomimetic inspiration of the bone structure to develop passive protection bars for different applications. The experimental results of the filled beech samples were examined to understand the crack and the propagation types by comparing these with the metacarpal bone experiment responses. The proposed investigation approach for the wood specimens subjected to three-point bending conditions is finally discussed, and the advantages are characterized to determine the most reliable beech sample for the protection bars.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Tree Root and Stability Studies · Wood Treatment and Properties · Cellular and Composite Structures

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

Affiliations

IKY Research Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey

References (21)

Show source-provided references
1. Smith JW · Journal of Anatomy · 1959 · 93 · 503
2. 10.1016/S8756-3282(98)00076-310.1016/S8756-3282(98)00076-3 ↗
3. 10.3844/ajassp.2009.463.47010.3844/ajassp.2009.463.470 ↗
4. 10.1359/jbmr.06051110.1359/jbmr.060511 ↗
5. Baranová D · Folia Veterinaria · 2008 · 52 · 168
6. 10.1016/j.bone.2008.06.01310.1016/j.bone.2008.06.013 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.bone.2008.04.02710.1016/j.bone.2008.04.027 ↗
8. 10.1007/s10439-014-1027-310.1007/s10439-014-1027-3 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.05.04210.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.05.042 ↗
10. 10.1007/BF0052186910.1007/BF00521869 ↗
11. 10.1007/BF0083341310.1007/BF00833413 ↗
12. 10.1617/s11527-005-9015-610.1617/s11527-005-9015-6 ↗
13. Sorn S · 2011 · 761
14. 10.12693/APhysPolA.132.47310.12693/APhysPolA.132.473 ↗
15. 10.12693/APhysPolA.132.76710.12693/APhysPolA.132.767 ↗
16. 10.12693/APhysPolA.132.85210.12693/APhysPolA.132.852 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.07.11310.1016/j.compstruct.2018.07.113 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.03410.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.034 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.02610.1016/j.compstruct.2016.12.026 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.04610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.046 ↗
21. Yilmazcoban IK · Research Journal of Biotechnology · 2014 · 9 · 55