Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Creep failure of honeycombs made by rapid prototyping

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A honeycomb near its glass temperature fails diffusely: strut fractures scatter across the lattice before a transverse crack forms, and this diffuse mode, driven by strut-to-strut ductility scatter, tolerates missing walls and inclusions.

desk verdict Solid experimental study of creep failure in PMMA honeycombs; the diffuse-damage story holds up qualitatively, but the FE validation of the ductility-scatter magnitude runs a calibration loop. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03078 v1 pith:7GJDF55V submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

P. E. Seiler , H. C. Tankasala , N. A. Fleck This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 62.20.Hg62.20.M
keywords latticematerialshexagonalhoneycombvisco-plasticcreepdiffusedamagestrutductilitydispersiontolerancetransitionflawsizerapidprototypingdefects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Uniaxial tension tests on laser-cut PMMA honeycombs at 100 °C (just below the glass-transition temperature) show a failure mode that is the opposite of the room-temperature one: struts fracture one by one at uncorrelated locations across the gauge section, the load stays nearly constant while roughly the first six struts fail, and only later does a single transverse crack form and run across the lattice. The paper argues that this diffuse damage mode requires two ingredients that the creep regime supplies: struts that are ductile enough to give the lattice a large transition flaw size (hundreds of cell lengths), and a dispersion in strut-to-strut ductility (coefficient of variation about 0.4) that seeds early failures at random sites. Finite-element simulations on the CT-scanned as-manufactured geometry reproduce the diffuse pattern only when that ductility dispersion is included; geometric defects alone give correlated, crack-like failure. If this mechanism is right, lattices in the creep regime are strikingly damage tolerant: removing up to four cell walls or filling cells with solid inclusions barely changes tensile strength, while the most damaging imperfection is randomly misplaced joints. These results distinguish which manufacturing tolerances matter for creep applications: joint position is critical, cell-wall continuity is not.

What carries the argument

The chain of explanation runs through two dimensionless knobs. The transition flaw size, $a_T \approx (1/\pi)(K_{IC}/\sigma^\infty_f)^2$, is the crack semi-length below which a lattice fails by strength rather than by fracture toughness; it is about one cell length for the brittle hexagonal lattice and about 250 cell lengths for a ductile lattice whose struts fail by stretching at a true failure strain of 1.3. The second knob is the dispersion in strut ductility, $\varepsilon_{fs,sd}/\varepsilon_{fs}$, taken as 0.4. Plotted against each other, the two knobs organise a four-case map — brittle/deterministic (A), ductile/deterministic (B), ductile/dispersed (C), brittle/dispersed (D) — that predicts whether failure will be correlated or diffuse. The load-carrying device inside the finite-element model is a Johnson-Cook-type damage law: damage nucleates at a local true plastic strain of 1.3 and softens linearly over a fracture energy $\Gamma_f = 2.5$ kJ/m$^2$, regularised by a characteristic element length so the prediction is mesh-independent; this converts the measured constitutive response of PMMA into strut fracture near the joints, at the locations where the dispersion in ductility first seeds it.

What would settle it

Make a large number of individual laser-cut PMMA struts and tensile-test each one in isolation at 100 °C, measuring the coefficient of variation of the true failure strains: if the intrinsic material scatter is well below 0.4, the central mechanism is unsupported because the simulation input was extracted from in-lattice measurements that mix geometry with material scatter. A complementary test: manufacture lattices with deliberately homogenised struts (annealed or printed with uniform thickness and identical heat history) and check whether first-failure strains and damage patterns remain diffuse; the paper's claim predicts they should become correlated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the failure mode of a hexagonal lattice switches from correlated to diffuse when the cell-wall solid moves from elastic-brittle to visco-plastic, and that the diffuse mode is what confers damage tolerance. In the creep regime at $T = 100\,^\circ\mathrm{C} \approx 0.97\,T_g$, first strut failure occurs at a macroscopic strain near 0.18 at a site that need not be the most highly stressed edge; subsequent failures land at random locations, with roughly half of the failed struts inclined at $\pm 60^\circ$ to the loading axis, until a critical cluster of failed struts reaches about half the specimen width and a transverse crack runs across. The same lattice at room temperature fails in a correlated, brittle manner with a crack advancing from one edge. FE simulations on the CT-scanned geometry show that as-manufactured geometric defects alone — dispersion in strut thickness $t_{sd}/t \approx 0.19$ and in Plateau-border radius — shift first failure from 0.76 to 0.42 macroscopic strain but still give a correlated crack-like mode; the observed early (0.18) and diffuse failure appears only when a dispersion in strut ductility $\varepsilon_{fs,sd}/\varepsilon_{fs} = 0.4$ is assigned strut by strut. The paper concludes that a dispersion in strut ductility is essential for the early strut failure and diffuse damage observed, and that together with the large transition flaw size of a ductile lattice ($a_T \approx 250\ell$) it makes the creep-regime lattice tolerant to missing cell walls and solid inclusions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scatter in strut ductility used in the simulations, $\varepsilon_{fs,sd}/\varepsilon_{fs} = 0.4$, really is a material-level scatter: the paper takes this value from the measured spread of effective failure strains of struts inside the lattice, which mixes genuine material variability with geometric and structural effects, and then treats the agreement of the simulated and measured failure-strain distributions as confirmation of that same input; if the intrinsic material scatter were substantially smaller, the simulated failure would become correlated and the diffuse-damage mechanism would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Creep-regime lattices keep essentially their full tensile strength with up to about four missing cell walls and with solid inclusions present, so holes and inclusions introduced by manufacturing or in-service damage do not need to be treated as critical flaws.
  • The same missing-row defect that is strength-limiting in the brittle lattice is almost harmless in the creep regime, because a large transition flaw size moves the lattice from toughness-controlled to strength-controlled failure.
  • Randomly misplaced joints are the most potent defect, cutting first-failure strength by a factor of about two at $R/\ell = 0.5$; joint positioning accuracy, not cell-wall integrity, should be the manufacturing priority.
  • The $a_T/\ell$ versus $\varepsilon_{fs,sd}/\varepsilon_{fs}$ map divides lattices into four classes with predictable failure modes, giving a design rule: diffuse damage and tolerance need both a large transition flaw size and a dispersion in strut ductility.
  • Dispersion in strut ductility is not merely a nuisance: it is the enabling condition for the diffuse damage that produces the near-flat load plateau and a long, observable sequence of strut failures before fast fracture.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Deliberately widening strut-to-strut ductility scatter — by process control, local heat treatment, or designed weak struts — should push other creep-ductile lattices (metallic or ceramic, not just PMMA) into the diffuse-damage class, provided their struts are ductile enough to keep the transition flaw size large.
  • The near-flat load plateau while several struts fail means a creep lattice gives a long, observable warning before fast fracture; counting failed struts by imaging or acoustic emission could serve as a remaining-life indicator, an application the paper does not discuss.
  • The paper leaves the net-section strength elevation at small crack sizes unexplained; a high-resolution DIC study of strut rotation at the tip of a two-to-three-cell pre-crack could test whether crack-tip blunting is the mechanism, and whether deliberately compliant blunting cells could enlarge the effect.
  • The four-case map is built at one relative density (0.11); since the transition flaw size involves the density scaling of both toughness and strength, the diffuse/correlated boundary may shift with density — a testable direction using the $\rho = 0.07$ and 0.19 data already reported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental and finite element study of uniaxial tensile failure of 2D PMMA honeycomb lattices tested at 100°C, i.e., slightly below the glass transition temperature, where PMMA is visco-plastic. The authors observe that, unlike the room-temperature brittle response of the same lattices, the high-temperature failure is diffuse: struts fail at uncorrelated locations before a single macroscopic crack forms. They quantify the dispersion of strut-level failure strain, and they use FE simulations that incorporate measured geometric imperfections and a scatter in material ductility to argue that strut-to-strut ductility dispersion is essential for reproducing the early strut failures and the diffuse damage mode. The paper also experimentally characterizes the sensitivity of the macroscopic strength to three designed defects—randomly perturbed joints, missing cell walls, and solid inclusions—and concludes that the visco-plastic lattice is highly damage tolerant to missing cell walls and inclusions because of its large transition flaw size.

Significance. The experimental observation that hexagonal PMMA lattices fail diffusely in the creep regime, in contrast to their correlated room-temperature failure, is a valuable and well-documented contribution. The measurements of defect sensitivity (missing cell walls, inclusions, joint perturbations) provide clear evidence of high damage tolerance in the visco-plastic regime, and the comparison with the companion brittle-lattice study is instructive. The FE study is a useful step toward mechanistic understanding, and the demonstration that a ductility dispersion is needed to reproduce the diffuse mode—while geometric imperfections alone produce a narrow failure-strain distribution and correlated failure—is qualitatively convincing. However, the quantitative identification of the ductility dispersion magnitude from the very lattice-level failure-strain distribution that is later used for validation introduces a circularity that weakens the force of the central mechanistic claim. If the authors can resolve this calibration issue, the paper would be a strong contribution to the mechanics of lattice materials.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2.1, Fig. 8] The FE input for material ductility scatter, εfs,sd/εfs = 0.4, is explicitly taken to equal the measured coefficient of variation of effective strut failure strains (ef,sd/ef = 0.4) obtained from within the lattice. The predicted p(ef) distribution is then compared with this same measured distribution and declared to be in 'excellent agreement,' implying the assumed scatter is of the correct level. This is a calibration-and-validation loop: the agreement does not independently test the hypothesis that material-level scatter has a coefficient of variation of 0.4, because the measured ey distribution includes geometric and structural contributions (thickness variation, Plateau borders, stress concentrations) that are not separated from material scatter. The comparison with the εfs,sd=0 case does show that some material-level dispersion is needed, but the specific magnitude of 0.4 and the relative roles of material versus geometric scatter remain unquantified. I recommend either direct measurement of the single-strut failure-strain distribution (rather than only its mean) or validation against an independent observable, such as the spatial statistics of failure locations in a specimen not used for calibration.
  2. [§6.2.1, Fig. 8] The statement 'a dispersion in strut ductility is essential to lead to early strut failure and diffuse damage' is based on FE simulations where the dispersion parameter is calibrated from the lattice-level failure-strain distribution that the model is then used to reproduce. Because the input and the validation target are the same measured quantity, the claim cannot be considered quantitatively established. The qualitative conclusion that some material-level scatter is required is supported by the contrast between the εfs,sd=0 and εfs,sd/εfs=0.4 cases, but the magnitude of the scatter and its dominance over geometric effects are not independently verified. I suggest adding a sensitivity study with intermediate values of εfs,sd/εfs (e.g., 0.1 and 0.2) and comparing not only p(ef) but also the spatial correlation of failure events with the experimental observations.
  3. [§5, Fig. 4] The experimental evidence for the diffuse failure mode is based on a small number of specimens (three per relative density, with one representative failure sequence shown in Fig. 4). The claim of 'uncorrelated locations' would be strengthened by quantitative spatial statistics, such as a nearest-neighbor distance distribution of failed struts compared with a random Poisson process, and by reporting the number of specimens that exhibited the diffuse mode. Without such analysis, the visual impression of randomness is suggestive but not definitive, especially since the specimen width is only 11 cells and boundary effects could artificially decorrelate failures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.1.1, Eq. (6)] The notation for the ductility dispersion is inconsistent: the text uses both εfs,sd/εf and εfs,sd/εfs. Please define the notation once and use it consistently throughout, including in the figure captions and the map of Fig. 9(a).
  2. [Fig. 8] The ordinate of Fig. 8 is labeled as a probability distribution function p(ef) but the axis is not normalized; please clarify whether the plotted quantity is a probability density or a histogram count, and provide the corresponding units.
  3. [§7.2, Fig. 11(a)] The observed elevation in net section strength at finite crack lengths is mentioned as 'unclear' and left for future work. A slightly fuller discussion of the possible mechanisms (citing the crack-tip blunting analysis of Tankasala et al. and the Voronoi honeycomb study of Mangipudi and Onck) would help the reader place this counterintuitive result.
  4. [Abstract and §5] The abstract states that 'the dispersion in macroscopic strength is measured,' but the main reported quantity is the strength at first strut failure (and the associated ductility). Please harmonize the abstract and the main text so that the terminology is consistent.
  5. [§6.1.1] The sentence 'The value of Δε follows from the specified work of fracture in the softening regime, Γf, and the characteristic length associated with the finite element, 𝓁c' is clear, but it would be helpful to state explicitly that the influence of element size on the mesh-dependence is removed by this scaling, as is implied by the reference to Oliver (1989).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Material ductility dispersion is calibrated from the same lattice-level failure-strain distribution used for validation, so the quantitative diffuse-damage claim is partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.2.1, Fig. 8]
    "The assumed value of εfs,sd/εf is taken to equal the measured value ef,sd/ef of strut ductility from Fig. 8. ... It is in excellent agreement with the observed distribution, implying that the assumed scatter in material failure strain εfs,sd/εfs = 0.4 is of the correct level."

    The FE parameter εfs,sd/εfs, which controls material-level ductility scatter, is set equal to the coefficient of variation ef,sd/ef of the effective strut failure-strain distribution measured inside the lattice (Fig. 8). The same measured distribution is then used as the validation target for the FE-predicted p(ef). Because the input is taken from the target statistic, the 'excellent agreement' is a consistency check of the FE transfer function, not an independent confirmation of the 0.4 value. The paper reports only the mean single-strut true failure strain (εfs = 1.3, from Fig. 3); no independent measurement of single-strut failure-strain dispersion is given.

full rationale

The central experimental observation of diffuse strut failure in the creep regime is independent and clearly documented. The FE contrast between deterministic strut ductility (εfs,sd = 0), which gives a correlated, crack-like failure mode and a narrow p(ef), and dispersed ductility, which gives a diffuse mode, provides independent support for the qualitative claim that some material-level dispersion is required. However, the quantitative dispersion parameter is not measured on isolated struts; it is taken to equal the lattice-level effective strut ductility distribution's coefficient of variation (ef,sd/ef = 0.4) in Fig. 8. The predicted p(ef) is then compared to that same measured distribution and the agreement is used to conclude that the assumed scatter is 'of the correct level.' This is a calibration-and-validation loop for that parameter. The paper's other uses of prior work by the same group, such as the transition-flaw-size estimate aT ≈ 250𝓁 from Tankasala et al., are interpretive and not the basis of the diffuse-damage mechanism; they are also supported by the present experiments showing high damage tolerance to missing cell walls. Thus the circularity is partial: the qualitative mechanism has independent content, but the specific material-dispersion input underpinning the quantitative validation is fitted from the data it is used to explain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted visco-plastic material law, a measured mean ductility, and an assumed ductility dispersion that is calibrated from the same lattice data the model is later compared with. The geometric imperfection measurements from CT are inputs, not free parameters. The damage model and the transition-flaw-size classification are taken from prior literature and assumed to transfer to the creep regime.

free parameters (6)
  • Reference stress sigma_0 in visco-plastic law = 1 MPa
    Chosen in Eq. (5) along with epsilon_dot_0 to match single-strut flow stresses at three strain rates (Section 6.1.1).
  • Reference strain rate epsilon_dot_0 = 4.4e-6 s^-1
    Chosen in Eq. (5) to match single-strut flow stresses at three strain rates (Section 6.1.1).
  • Hardening law coefficients in f(epsilon_P) = exp(0.9*epsilon_P), 0.835*exp(1.2*epsilon_P), 0.48*exp(1.8*epsilon_P) over three strain ranges
    Curve fit to measured single-strut true stress-strain data excluding the initial peak and softening (Eq. 6).
  • Mean solid ductility epsilon_fs = 1.3 (true strain)
    Measured mean ductility of single struts; used as the damage initiation strain for all material points in the FE model.
  • Strut ductility dispersion epsilon_fs,sd/epsilon_fs = 0.4
    Assumed equal to the measured coefficient of variation of effective strut failure strain from lattice specimens (Fig. 8), not independently measured on the solid; this parameter is essential for the predicted diffuse damage mode.
  • Fracture energy Gamma_f = 2.5 kJ/m2
    Taken from literature PMMA K_IC = 1 MPa sqrt(m) (Ref. [20]) via the Irwin relation; sets the linear softening slope in Eq. (7) and affects the predicted strut failure sequence.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hexagonal lattice stiffness and strength scale as E ~ rho^3 E_s and sigma_f ~ rho^2 sigma_fs (Eq. 2).
    Adopted from Gibson-Ashby [1] for bending-dominated hexagonal lattices; used to interpret relative density and compare strengths.
  • domain assumption Cell wall solid obeys the sinh^-1 visco-plastic law with the fitted hardening function (Eqs. 5-6).
    The constitutive form is assumed; parameters are fitted to single-strut data but the functional form is not derived.
  • domain assumption Johnson-Cook type damage initiation at local true strain epsilon_fs = 1.3 and linear softening from a prescribed fracture energy (Eq. 7).
    Damage model chosen to represent strut failure; values from single-strut tests and literature K_IC.
  • domain assumption The transition flaw size a_T about 250*l for ductile hexagonal lattices from Tankasala et al. [24] applies to the present visco-plastic PMMA lattices.
    Used in the case A-D map (Fig. 9a) to classify the lattice as large-flaw-size; not measured here.
  • ad hoc to paper The measured effective strut failure strain distribution (mean 1.63, CV 0.4) equals the material ductility distribution of the cell wall solid.
    This identification is assumed in Section 6.2.1 to set epsilon_fs,sd/epsilon_fs = 0.4, and is the load-bearing premise for the diffuse-damage prediction. It conflates geometric and material scatter.
  • domain assumption Plane strain conditions apply to the 5 mm thick PMMA sheet lattice (CPE6M elements).
    The FE model uses plane strain; the sheet is 5 mm thick with 0.47 mm struts, so out-of-plane constraint may differ from plane stress or full 3D behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Creep failure of honeycombs made by rapid prototyping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GJDF55V

@misc{pith2026190803078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Creep failure of honeycombs made by rapid prototyping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GJDF55V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03078}
}
read the original abstract

Additive manufacture and rapid prototyping are versatile methods for the generation of lattice materials for applications in the creep regime. However, these techniques introduce defects that can degrade the macro-scopic creep strength. In the present study, the uniaxial tensile response of two-dimensional PMMA lattices is measured in the visco-plastic regime: tests are performed at 100C which is slightly below the glass transition temperature T g of PMMA. Both as-manufactured defects (Plateau borders and strut thickness variation) and as-designed defects (missing cell walls, solid inclusions, and randomly perturbed joints) are introduced. The dispersion in macroscopic strength is measured for relative densities in the range of 0.07 to 0.19. It is observed that initial failure of the lattice is diffuse in nature: struts fail at a number of uncorrelated locations, followed by the development of a single macroscopic crack transverse to the loading direction. In contrast, the same PMMA lattice fails in a correlated, brittle manner at room temperature. An FE study is performed to gain insight into the diffuse failure mode and the role played by as-manufactured defects, including the dispersion in tensile strength of individual struts of the lattice. A high damage tolerance to as-designed defects is observed experimentally: there is negligible knock-down in strength due to the removal of cell walls or to the presence of solid inclusions. These findings aid the design and manufacture of damage tolerant lattices in the creep regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03078 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. The assumed value of εfs,sd/εf is taken to equal the measured value ef,sd/ef of strut ductility from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Single strut specimen, and (b) lattice specimen of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lattice specimens (ρ = 0.11) containing as-designed defects in the form of (a) randomly perturbed joints (R/` = 0.5), (b) a row of missing cell walls, and (c) a row of solid inclusions. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Nominal stress versus nominal strain response of single strut samples at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Measured macroscopic nominal stress versus nominal strain response of lattices for selected values of relative density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measured nominal axial failure strain of struts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Details of the FE model: (a) geometry of an as-manufactured lattice specimen along with the loading and boundary conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Measured versus predicted response for a lattice of relative density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The probability distribution function p(ef ) of the nominal axial failure strain of struts ef for a lattice of relative density ρ = 0.11. 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlated versus diffuse damage: (a) Map showing the parameter space for correlated versus diffuse modes of damage as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measured macroscopic properties of imperfect lattices with randomly misplaced joints: (a) macroscopic tensile strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Measured tensile strength of lattice specimens with (a) a row of missing cell walls and (b) a row of solid inclusions, as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. J. Gibson, M. F. Ashby, Cellular solids: structure and properties, Cambridge University Press, 1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    E. W. Andrews, L. J. Gibson, M. F. Ashby, The creep of cellular solids, Acta Materialia 47 (1999) 2853–2863

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    S. M. Oppenheimer, D. C. Dunand, Finite element modeling of creep deformation in cellular metals, Acta Materialia 55 (2007) 3825– 3834

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    N. J. Mills, A. Gilcrist, Creep and recovery of polyolefin foams-deformation mechanisms, Journal of Cellular Plastics 33 (1997) 264–292

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Deschanel, L

    S. Deschanel, L. Vanel, N. Godin, E. Maire, G. Vigier, S. Ciliberto, Mechanical response and fracture dynamics of polymeric foams, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 42 (2009) 214001

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    H. X. Zhu, N. J. Mills, Modelling the creep of open-cell polymer foams, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 47 (1999) 1437–1457

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Z. G. Fan, C. Q. Chen, T. J. Lu, Multiaxial creep of low density open-cell foams, Materials Science and Engineering: A 540 (2012) 83–88

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    K. A. Khan, R. K. A. Al-Rub, Time dependent response of architectured Neovius foams, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 126 (2017) 106–119

    work page 2017

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson, Creep of polymer foams, Journal of Materials Science 26 (1991) 637–647

    1991

  2. [10]

    J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson, Creep of open-cell Voronoi foams, Materials Science and Engineering: A 339 (2003) 220–226

    2003

  3. [11]

    K. C. Goretta, R. Brezny, C. Q. Dam, D. J. Green, A. R. D. Arellano-Lopez, A. Dominguez-Rodriguez, High temperature mechanical behavior of porous open-cell Al2O3, Materials Science and Engineering: A 124 (1990) 151–158

    1990

  4. [12]

    Chen, J.-S

    T.-J. Chen, J.-S. Huang, Creep-rupturing of cellular materials: Regular hexagonal honeycombs with dual imperfections, Composites Science and Technology 68 (2008) 1562–1569. 19

    2008

  5. [13]

    P. E. Seiler, H. C. Tankasala, N. A. Fleck, The role of defects in brittle honeycombs made via rapid prototyping, Acta Materialia 171 (2019) 190–200

    2019

  6. [14]

    D. N. Boccaccini, H. L. Frandsen, B. R. Sudireddy, P. Blennow, ˚A. H. Persson, K. Kwok, P. V . Hendriksen, Creep behaviour of porous metal supports for solid oxide fuel cells, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39 (2014) 21569–21580

    2014

  7. [15]

    B. Su, Z. Zhou, Z. Wang, Z. Li, X. Shu, Effect of defects on creep behavior of cellular materials, Materials Letters 136 (2014) 37–40

    2014

  8. [16]

    Han, R.-P

    B. Han, R.-P. Yu, Q.-C. Zhang, H.-J. Gao, Q. Zhang, T. J. Lu, B.-H. Lu, Creep of closed-cell aluminum foams: Effects of imperfections and predictive modeling, Materials & Design 156 (2018) 229–241

    2018

  9. [17]

    Lin, J.-S

    J.-Y. Lin, J.-S. Huang, Creep of hexagonal honeycombs with Plateau borders, Composite Structures 67 (2005) 477–484

    2005

  10. [18]

    Van Loock, N

    F. Van Loock, N. A. Fleck, Deformation and failure maps for PMMA in uniaxial tension, Polymer 148 (2018) 259–268

    2018

  11. [19]

    G. R. Johnson, W. H. Cook, Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pres- sures, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 21 (1985) 31–48

    1985

  12. [20]

    S. R. Choi, J. A. Salem, Fracture toughness of PMMA as measured with indentation cracks, Journal of Materials Research 8 (1993) 3210–3217

    1993

  13. [21]

    Oliver, A consistent characteristic length for smeared cracking models, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 28 (1989) 461–474

    J. Oliver, A consistent characteristic length for smeared cracking models, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 28 (1989) 461–474

    1989

  14. [22]

    N. A. Fleck, X. Qiu, The damage tolerance of elastic–brittle, two-dimensional isotropic lattices, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 55 (2007) 562–588

    2007

  15. [23]

    Quintana-Alonso, S

    I. Quintana-Alonso, S. P. Mai, N. A. Fleck, D. C. H. Oakes, M. V . Twigg, The fracture toughness of a cordierite square lattice, Acta Materialia 58 (2010) 201–207

    2010

  16. [24]

    H. C. Tankasala, V . S. Deshpande, N. A. Fleck, Tensile response of elastoplastic lattices at finite strain, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 109 (2017) 307 – 330

    2017

  17. [25]

    N. E. R. Romijn, N. A. Fleck, The fracture toughness of planar lattices: Imperfection sensitivity, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 55 (2007) 2538–2564

    2007

  18. [26]

    H. C. Tankasala, V . S. Deshpande, N. A. Fleck, 2013 Koiter Medal Paper: Crack-Tip Fields and Toughness of Two-Dimensional Elasto- plastic Lattices, Journal of Applied Mechanics 82 (2015) 091004

    2015

  19. [27]

    K. R. Mangipudi, P. R. Onck, Notch sensitivity of ductile metallic foams: A computational study, Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 7356–7367. 20 Figures (a) P P Ls (b) W L P P Figure 1: (a) Single strut specimen, and (b) lattice specimen ofρ= 0.11. The sheet thickness of all samples i...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.