Meccanica

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-024-01813-2

RESEARCH

Experimental and numerical mechanical characterisation

of additively manufactured polymeric lattice structures
under uniaxial tensile load
Danilo Bruson · Luca Iuliano · Manuela Galati

Received: 23 November 2023 / Accepted: 22 April 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract Additive manufacturing enables the pro- to compute the full range of strains at the macroscopic
duction of lighter, more robust components with intri- level. Experimental and numerical strain maps results
cate features like lattice structures. However, since showed a good agreement. The recorded deviation
the mechanical behaviour of lattice structures is not was attributed to the process-induced defect, such
fully characterized, the application of such potential as the geometrical accuracy that, if compensated,
is limited today. The challenge with lattice structures boosted the capability of the numerical model to pre-
tensile tests is defining a suitable design that fits the dict the mechanical behaviour of the lattice structure.
standard requirements and process characteristics. In
the polymeric powder bed fusion process, the prob- Keywords Lattice structures · Tensile · FEA · PBF-
lem is to produce powder-free geometries and to LB/P · Nylon · Selective laser sintering
avoid stress concentrations zones, adapting the speci-
men accordingly. In this regard, numerical simulation
may provide insightful information and support the 1 Introduction
analysis of the deformation mechanisms. This paper
analyses a new tensile sample for lattice structures Reticular structures, also called lattices, are geo-
using finite element analysis. The sample is designed metrical features that describe the absence of design
following the EN ISO 527 standard prescriptions. An constraints in advanced technologies such as additive
area with a controlled gradation of the lattice relative manufacturing (AM). Despite this possibility, the use
density is designed to ensure both powder-free voids of such structures is still limited because little infor-
and fracture localization within the lattice specimen mation is present on their mechanical behaviour and
gauge length. Experimental tests are performed to feature quality.
validate the numerical results using a modified body Because of the reticular nature of the lattice struc-
cubic centred topology with two different strut diam- tures, the main issue from the manufacturing point of
eters. The specimens are produced in polyamide by view is to guarantee adequate dimensional accuracy
powder bed AM process. Due to the complexity of with respect to the nominally designed structures
the lattice design, a digital image correlation is used [1–4].
From the mechanical point of view, lattice struc-
tures have been primarily investigated under com-
D. Bruson (*) · L. Iuliano · M. Galati pression loads [5–14], while few works have been
Department of Management and Production Engineering,
focused on the tensile behaviour [15, 16]. The main
Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
e-mail: danilo.bruson@polito.it problem when testing lattice structures under tensile

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Meccanica

load is the discontinuities in the stress distribution out-of-plane strain tensor components, leading to an
located in the load introduction zone [15, 17, 18]. underestimation of their actual deformation [25].
This discontinuity provokes a fracture outside the Another challenging point of applying the density
gauge length or at the boundary between the lat- gradation approach is modelling the density gradation
tice and the bulk end [17], invalidating the result. because it should simultaneously consider the gra-
To solve this issue, Drücker et al. [15] proved that a dation pattern, its extension, the variation of density
smooth transition at that boundary could distribute and the manufacturing constraints. Because the play-
the stress during the loading more uniformly. Prac- ing variables are multiples, predicting the fracture is
tically, this proposal was realised by progressively difficult. The simulation could help to forecast the
increasing the strut diameter to obtain a gradual fracture localisation and analyse the stress/strain dis-
density gradation that enables control of the fracture tribution in advance. This data could then be used to
localisation. Despite the potential of this approach, adjust the specimen geometry and prevent stress con-
only a few examples can be found in literature, and centration outside the gauge length.
they are mainly devoted to metallic materials [19, Considering the literature, this work attempts to
20]. For polymeric materials, the tensile behaviour implement a non-linear FE model with improved pre-
of stochastic Voronoi and a body-centred cubic dictive capabilities and analyse the effect of density
structure has been investigated by Porter et al. [21] gradation of the lattice cell on the load introduction
using experiments and finite element (FE) method. and corresponding stress. As a novelty, the geometry
The samples were designed without any gradation. proposed for the numerical and experimental lattice
The deviation between the experimental and numer- specimen adapts to the ISO 527 standard for plastics.
ical force–displacement was over 97%. Overall, this In addition, a new formulation was used to obtain the
large deviation observed in literature was explained density gradation. The samples were fabricated using
by numerous works as the effect of manufacturing polyamide PA12 and a laser powder bed fusion sys-
errors and dimensional deviations, which are usu- tem and then tested under a quasi-static tensile test.
ally not considered by the numerical models [5, 22]. DIC measurements were performed during the test
It has been demonstrated that the deviation between to assess further the designed geometry efficacy and
the CAD model and the actual fabrication is signifi- validate the simulation model. The influence of the
cant, especially in the case of thin structures [22]. process-induced defects on the numerical results was
Besides manufacturing, another challenge for the investigated via X-ray computed tomography.
mechanical characterisation of such thin and com-
plex structures is acquiring the full range of local
strain distribution under load. Using an extensom- 2 Material and methods
eter that gives the average strain is meaningless for
such structures. The use of a digital image corre- The EN ISO 527-2:2019 [26] standard tensile sample
lation (DIC) system may provide a deeper under- for plastics (Fig. 1) was selected as a standard for cre-
standing of local deformations [23–25]. However, ating the geometry.
the acquired images need to be processed meticu- The selected cell for the analysis was the body
lously because of the pattern created by projecting cubic centred (BCC) topology due to the wide litera-
the structures in 2 dimensions. Also, the outcomes ture research on this type of structure [8, 11, 14, 21,
of DIC analysis in such reticular structures may be 27–30]. It consists of 4 diagonal struts oriented as
affected by acquisition factors, including magnifi- the diagonals of a cube and merged in a single cen-
cation, lens quality, light conditions, and the com- tral node. In the analysed configuration, displayed in
plexity of the surface texture of the specimen [24]. Fig. 2b), the classic form of BCC has been inscribed
Extended strut topologies can exhibit significant in a cubic primitive cell made of struts placed along
out-of-plane displacements when performing DIC the edges of a cube to improve the bending stiffness
analysis on lattice structures [24]. Inclined struts of the tensile specimen.
relative to the 2D image acquisition plane could The fitting of the lattice structure in the standard
present a strain accumulation phenomenon on the geometry involved replacing the gauge length with
the unit cells at a predefined relative density. From the

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica

[mm]
170

4 ± 0.2

20 ± 0.2

10 ± 0.2

75 ± 0.5

115 ± 1

Fig. 1  EN ISO 527-2:2019: specimen type 1A [26]. Dimension in mm

a) BCC1 tensile specimen

II
6 mm
20 mm

170 mm

b) c)

I II
BCC unit cell density gradation (3 steps)

Fig. 2  Specimen dimensioning with the detailed view of the BCC1 unit cell topology and the three density gradation steps at the
lattice-bulk interface

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Meccanica

end of the gauge length, a smooth transition is realised a) b)

by gradually increasing each strut diameter. The cell
dimension has been selected for the experimental vali-
dation, in compliance with the standard, equal to 5 mm.

initial distance between grips

The elementary cell was investigated using two differ-
ent strut diameters. The first structure, BCC1, has struts
with a corresponding diameter equal to 1 mm and a
relative density in the gauge length equal to 25%. The
second structure was named BCC1.5 and had struts
with a diameter equal to 1.5 mm and a corresponding
relative density in the gauge length equal to 45%. For
both cases, the width-thickness ratio was kept constant
and equal to approximately 10:4.
The specimen thickness has been designed to
include only one elementary cell. Therefore, the width x
and thickness of the standard specimen were slightly
y
adjusted to 11 and 6 mm, respectively, for BCC1 and z
11.5 mm and 6.5 mm for BCC1.5. 0.2 mm mesh size
displacement
Unlike the approach that Drücker et al. adopted encastre
[15], the graduation was designed to achieve a com- 0 5 10 mm
plete fusion between the lattice and the bulk ends. That
means that the diameter of the strut at the last step Fig. 3  a Model used to simulate the BCC1 tensile test, b
Segment of the BCC1 lattice specimen meshed cells with a
of graduation corresponds to a relative density of at 0.2 mm mesh size
least 90% of the bulk density. This gradation has been
achieved in three steps. At each step, the diameter has
been increased with respect to the previous step (Fig. 2) “Quasi-static solution” options activated in the solver
by 44% for BCC1 and 26% for BCC1.5. In this way, controls panel.
a gradual decrease of the void volume of the cell was According to Porter et al. [21], the material used
realised, accomplishing a smooth transition from the in the analysis was modelled using a multi-linear
lattice to the bulk ends. isotropic hardening (MISO) material. This model
Parallel to the design for the production, a finite ele- accounts for the linear-elastic and plasticity of the
ment analysis has been performed on the preliminary material. The Young’s Modulus of 1345 MPa and
design using ANSYS Workbench 2021 (ANSYS Inc.; the plasticity piece-wise vector reported in Table 1
Canonsburg, PA). The analysis aims to assess the effi- have been derived from the tensile tests performed on
cacy of the adopted graduation pattern to guarantee bulk specimens built in the same conditions used for
the homogeneity of the stress distribution within the the lattice samples. The Poisson ratio was set at 0.4
gauge length of the sample. The model has been discre- accordingly Ref. [5, 21, 31].
tised with second-order 10-node quadratic tetrahedron The analysis was performed by applying a joint
SOLID 187 elements with a size equal to 0.20 mm, constraint to the two surfaces of one end tab to repli-
selected after a convergence analysis and, accordingly, cate the clamp, while a longitudinal displacement of
the strut size. Considering the geometry and material- 3 mm was applied to the opposite tab. For example,
related non-linearities, a “Static Structural” analysis Fig. 3a illustrates the model for the BCC1 structures
via Newton–Raphson Method as non-linear solution with a portion of the lattice specimen with the detail
strategy was adopted with “Large deflections” and of the discretisation (Fig. 3b).

Table 1  True plastic stress Yield stress (Mpa) 21.2 24.5 27.7 30.8 36.2 43 47.8 49.3
and strain of bulk material
Plastic strain 0.0000 0.0003 0.0006 0.0010 0.0024 0.0800 0.0180 0.0300

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica

The specimens were fabricated using PA2200

powder (polyamide 12 or PA12, with a mixture of 900
50% virgin and 50% recycled) and an EOS Formiga 800
P110 Velocis system laser, a powder bed fusion 700 BCC15

Force reaction [N]

(PBF-LB) system. The process parameters were set as 600
in Ref. [32]. The samples were built in the edgewise
500
configuration, thus with the sample thickness perpen-
400
dicular to the build orientation (z-axis), as shown in
Fig. 4a). 300
Five replicas were produced for each geom- 200
BCC1
etry (BCC1 and BCC15). In addition, as anticipated 100
before, five bulk samples were also manufactured to 0
extract and model the numerical material model. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
All the tensile tests were carried out using an Crosshead displacement [mm]
Easydur AURA 10 T system following EN ISO
527-1 [33]. The crosshead speed was equal to 5 mm/ Fig. 5  Experimental BCC15 and BCC1 force–displacement
plot
min, and the acquisition rate was at 500 Hz until the
sample failed. The replicas were used to validate
the replicability of the process. Figure 5 shows the
results of tensile tests in terms of force–displace-
ment for the replicas of each analysed structures. As

a) Tensile specimen edgewise manufacturing orientation

y x

b) DIC speckle pattern

Fig. 4  a Manufacturing edgewise orientation of the tensile specimen (z build orientation) and b BCC1 DIC speckle pattern

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Meccanica

it can be observed, the deviation among the differ- corresponding voxel size of 16.74 µm. The 3D geom-
ent tests is negligible considering the scope of the etry was modelled using the software VGStudio Max
paper. 3.4.
Before the test, the lattice specimens were coated
with white aerosol paint and a speckled pattern via
black aerosol paint, as reported in Fig. 4b). The pat- 3 Results and discussion
tern highlights the local deformation of the sample
for an automatic DIC. The images for the DIC were The numerical results showed that the designed sam-
acquired at 1 fps with an X-Sight optical extensom- ple provides a homogeneous stress distribution in the
eter and then processed via the open-source Matlab load introduction region without any perturbations at
code Ncorr. the bulk-lattice interface. An example of the results
The dimensional and porosity analyses of the is reported in Fig. 6 as Von Mises stress plots of the
manufactured specimens were carried out using a BCC1 and BCC1.5 (Fig. 5b). As can be observed, the
computed tomography (CT-scan) system, GE Phoe- regions of high stress (red zones) are located within
nix v|tome|x s. The tomographies were acquired the gauge length as recommended by the standard and
using 100 kV of voltage, 80 μA of current, and a the values decrease toward the bulk ends.

a)
BCC1 BCC15

b)
Von Mises stress plot [MPa]

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
I III
5
II IV
0

Fig. 6  a Failed specimens after the tensile tests compared to plot magnifications, II–IV middle plane section view of BCC1
the b Von Mises stress plots at 3 mm of crosshead displace- and BCC1.5 single cell stress plot magnifications
ments. I–III front view of BCC1 and BCC1.5 single cell stress

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica

This result is confirmed by the experimental tests explained by the sharp re-entrant corners [21]. This
(Fig. 5a), in which all failures occurred within the effect appears more critical for the strut diameter
gauge length of the lattice specimen on a single cell equal to 1.5 mm where the stress at the central node
row level. This behaviour, therefore, validates the uni- was higher.
form load introduction. Good agreement has been found between the esti-
As can be observed in the magnification in Fig. 6, mated location of higher stress and the position where
the most stressed regions are detected along the lon- the fracture occurred during the experiments. As
gitudinal struts oriented along the tensile load axis. mentioned above, the fractures occurred in the longi-
In particular, the higher stress areas are located inter- tudinal struts of the specimen (Fig. 6a), which vali-
nally on longitudinal struts, as shown in the mid- dates the numerical model.
plane section stress plots. The beams arranged along To gain further insight into the pattern deforma-
the diagonal and perpendicular displayed stress val- tion of the analysed topology, Fig. 7 compares DIC
ues mostly lower than half of the maximum stress measurements and the numerical simulations at a
magnitude. displacement of 2 mm. A good agreement can be
The stresses are located in the nodal regions of the observed regarding the strain distribution between the
longitudinal beams, indicating likely a failure loca- measured deformation through DIC and FE results,
tion at the single-cell level, according to the experi- particularly for the predicted strains exhibited in the
mental results (Fig. 6b). longitudinal and perpendicular struts relative to the
The load-bearing capacity of the analysed topol- tensile axis. The DIC strain plots showed good agree-
ogy is mainly due to the longitudinal and diagonal ment with the numerical simulation results. This
struts. The higher stress located at the nodes can be result confirms the homogeneous distribution of the

Fig. 7  DIC and FEA longitudinal strain εT contour plots of the BCC1 and BCC1.5 lattice specimens

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Meccanica

cell strains along the gauge length and validates the and experimental force was around 47% and 7% for
efficacy of the designed load introduction geometry the BCC1 and BCC1.5, respectively. According to
for the tensile testing of lattice structures. Numeri- Ref. [5, 21, 22], the deviation could be attributed
cally, the values differ for several reasons. Among to geometrical or material differences between the
them was the presence of process-induced geometri- experimental and numerical models. For the first
cal defects on the strut surfaces that were neglected in issue, the geometry of the numerical model can be
the numerical model. The effect of the manufacturing corrected by accurate dimensional analysis, such as
system on the lattice caused strain concentrations that CT-scan measurements. This analysis showed that the
can be noticed in the diagonal struts. This phenom- section of the horizontal struts is ovalised with respect
enon is more evident in the smaller strut size (1 mm), to the circular CAD model. The measurements of the
which agrees with previous results on the geometri- axes of the ellipse approximating the actual strut sec-
cal accuracy investigation of thin cylindrical elements tion for the horizontal strut are gathered in Table 2.
[4]. Also, the struts that were oriented according to the
For BCC1.5, the DIC analysis shows higher strains build direction and the diagonal struts exhibited a
with respect to the corresponding numerical values,
and they are located in the central node of the cell
where the diagonal struts join. This behaviour could Table 2  BCC manufactured sample strut’s measurements and
be observed in Fig. 6a) at a single cell level. BCC1 standard deviations (SD)
specimens tend instead to shift the strain localisations Actual strut dimensions (SD) BCC1 BCC1.5
from the nodal area along the diagonal struts, result- (mm)
ing in a more homogeneous strain distribution.
x Major axis a 1.08 (0.03) 1.55 (0.04)
To explain this behaviour, a further comparison
Minor axis b 0.60 (0.04) 1.28 (0.02)
is made between the forecasted force–displacement
y Major axis a 1.13 (0.05) 1.58 (0.02)
curves and the experimental values (Fig. 8). In this
Minor axis b 0.64 (0.02) 1.31 (0.03)
regard, the numerical model appeared stiffer than the
z Diameter 0.76 (0.04) 1.27 (0.05)
experimental counterpart. At a crosshead displace-
diag Diameter 0.73 (0.02) 1.36 (0.03)
ment of 3 mm, the deviation between the calculated

Force [N] BCC1 Force [N] BCC1.5

250 700
CAD
600 Exp
200 Exp
500 CAD
150 400
Actual geometry
100 300
200
50 Actual geometry
100
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Crosshead displacement [mm] Crosshead displacement [mm]

Fig. 8  FEA—experimental force–displacement plots comparison of BCC1 (left) and BCC1.5 (right) specimens. The blue lines rep-
resent the numerical results obtained from the CAD nominal model, while the red lines the actual geometry reconstruction

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica

geometrical deviation, but their section was still cir- This difference in porosity content could explain
cular. However, the diameter of those struts was about the negative deviation between the lattice experi-
25% smaller than the nominal CAD for the BCC and mental and numerical results, for which the material
between 10 and 15% for BCC1.5 (Table 2). model has been extracted from the bulk tensile tests.
Using the corrected geometry allowed a significant In this case, since the simulation accounted only for
reduction of the deviation between the experimen- the first elastic–plastic field, the major contribution
tal and numerical force–displacement curves. Com- to the material resistance is originated by the overall
pared to previous results, the resulting deviation was material resistance which is affected by the distrib-
negative and equal to 12.5% for BCC1 and 2% for uted pores present in the bulk sample. Conceivably,
BCC1.5. the clustered pores present in the lattice structures
Therefore, the residual deviation can be attributed contribute to the final material failure and need to
to the material model, which was extracted from bulk considered in the case of plastic or failure analysis.
specimens and could be microstructurally differ- According to Ref. [4], the discrepancy between the
ent from the material composing the thin struts. To amounts of porosity in parts processed by L-PBF/P
corroborate this hypothesis, the presence of internal is related to the ratio between the inner exposed area
defects was investigated via a CT scan, as reported in (hatching) and its perimeter (contour). The higher the
Fig. 9. In contrast with the bulk sample, for the lattice ratio is, the higher the amount of porosities is. In the
specimen, the presence of internal clustered pores, case of thin lattice struts, this ratio tends to be rela-
with a large equivalent diameter can be observed tively small because the inner section of the struts
(red dots in Fig. 9). However, the analysis showed is relatively negligible. In the bulk section, the inner
that, within the gauge length, the material den- zones to be exposed are significant.
sity of the BCC1 and BCC1.5 is higher (97.8% and The obtained result implies that the material
98.1%, respectively) compared to the bulky specimen behaviour of small features and their mechanical
(96.6%). responses differ significantly from bulk samples and

Diameter [mm] Porosity analysis

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10

Bulk BCC1 BCC1.5

Density [%] 96.6% 97.8% 98.1%

Fig. 9  Porosity analysis results on the bulk, BCC1 and ter is defined as the diameter of a sphere whose volume equals
BCC1.5 samples CT-scan reconstructions reported in terms of the volume of the pore
equivalent diameters comparison where the equivalent diame-

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Meccanica

require detailed modelling that accounts for local the thin features of lattice structures since the struts
deformation mechanisms. exhibited higher densities than the bulk material. A
detailed experimental camping should be performed
to isolate the behaviour of the single struts to estab-
4 Conclusions lish the correlation between the processed material
for thin features and the corresponding mechanical
The design of tensile specimens made by lattice behaviour.
structures for mechanical characterisation is com-
plex because it is necessary to assess many elements, Author contributions Conceptualisation, Methodology, For-
mal analysis, and investigation: Danilo Bruson and Manuela
including the homogeneity of the stresses during the Galati; Visualisation and Writing—original draft: Danilo Bru-
load and the effect of process-induced defects. This son; Writing—review and editing: Manuela Galati and Luca
study used a non-linear FEA to evaluate the effective- Iuliano; Resources: Luca Iuliano; Supervision: Manuela Galati.
ness of a new specimen design for reticular lattice in
Funding Open access funding provided by Politecnico di
guaranteeing homogeneity of the stress distribution
Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
in the load introduction region during the tensile test.
The novel geometry used for the test was created fol- Availability of data and materials The authors declare
lowing the ISO 527 standard for tensile characterisa- that the data supporting the findings of this study are available
tion. For validation purposes, specimens were manu- within the paper.
factured with two strut sizes in PA12 via PBF-LB/P, Declarations
analysed using a CT scan and tested under a tensile
load. The full range of strains was gathered during the Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no
test using a DIC analysis. conflict of interest.
As forecasted by the FEA, the DIC analysis con- Ethical approval Not applicable.
firmed the higher strain regions within the gauge
length and the forecasted failure locations on a sin-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com-
gle cell row level in agreement with the experimental mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
failures, validating the numerical analysis. Remark- use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
ably, the predicted most stressed regions at a single medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
cell level were in the struts oriented longitudinally to original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea-
tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
the load axis, where the initial failure was observed images or other third party material in this article are included
experimentally. in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
CT-Scan analysis displayed a discrepancy between otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
the nominal CAD and manufactured geometry in both included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the considered strut sizes. This finding explained the the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
observed numerical reaction loads, which were over- from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
estimated by 47% and 7% for BCC1 and BCC1.5, http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
respectively, at a 3 mm crosshead displacement. The
inferior experimental mechanical responses compared
to the results of the numerical analysis performed on
the CAD nominal geometry were explained by the References
ovalisation of the XY struts and the smaller diago-
nal and z-oriented strut diameters. When the model 1. Murchio S, Dallago M, Zanini F, Carmignato S, Zappini
G, Berto F, Benedetti M (2021) Additively manufac-
geometry was compensated for the process-related tured Ti–6Al–4V thin struts via laser powder bed fusion:
dimensional deviations, the predictive capability of effect of building orientation on geometrical accuracy
the numerical analysis improved significantly. and mechanical properties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater.
The numerical results deviated marginally from https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jmbbm.​2021.​104495
2. Sombatmai A, Uthaisangsuk V, Wongwises S, Promop-
their experimental counterparts. The residual dis- patum P (2021) Multiscale investigation of the influ-
crepancy may be attributed to the fact that the bulk- ence of geometrical imperfections, porosity, and size-
derived material model is suboptimal for representing dependent features on mechanical behavior of additively

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Meccanica

manufactured Ti-6Al-4V lattice struts. Mater Des mechanical properties, deformation and failure modes.
209:109985. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​MATDES.​2021.​ Mater Des 157:179–199. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​MAT-
109985 DES.​2018.​06.​010
3. Hossain U, Ghouse S, Nai K, Jeffers JRT (2021) Mechani- 15. Drücker S, Inman S, Fiedler B (2020) Simulation and
cal and morphological properties of additively manufac- optimization of the load introduction geometry of addi-
tured SS316L and Ti6Al4V micro-struts as a function of tively manufactured lattice structure specimens. In:
build angle. Addit Manuf 46:102050. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ ECCM 2018—18th European conference on composite
1016/J.​ADDMA.​2021.​102050 materials
4. Pavan M, Craeghs T, Verhelst R, Ducatteeuw O, Kruth JP, 16. Maconachie T, Leary M, Lozanovski B, Zhang X, Qian
Dewulf W (2016) CT-based quality control of laser sin- M, Faruque O, Brandt M (2019) SLM lattice structures:
tering of polymers. Case Stud Nondestr Test Eval. https://​ properties, performance, applications and challenges.
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​csndt.​2016.​04.​004 Mater Des 183:108137. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​MAT-
5. Neff C, Hopkinson N, Crane NB (2020) Selective laser DES.​2019.​108137
sintering of diamond lattice structures: experimental 17. Alsalla H, Hao L, Smith C (2016) Fracture toughness
results and FEA model comparison. In: Proceedings— and tensile strength of 316L stainless steel cellular lattice
26th annual international solid freeform fabrication structures manufactured using the selective laser melting
symposium—an additive manufacturing conference, technique. Mater Sci Eng A. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
SFF 2015 msea.​2016.​05.​075
6. Gümüs S, Lackner JM, Polat Ş, Kraschitzer W, Hanning 18. Liu W, Li Y, Liu B, Wang G (2020) Development
H, Bayram A, Alkan A (2018) Failure behavior of PA12 of a novel rectangular–circular grid filling pattern of
based SLS lattice structure with macro-porosity. In: fused deposition modeling in cellular lattice struc-
MATEC web of conferences. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1051/​ tures. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
matec​conf/​20181​88030​07 s00170-​020-​05461-0
7. Prithvirajan R, Balakumar C, Arumaikkannu G (2019) 19. Jung J, Meyer G, Greiner M, Mittelstedt C (2023) Load
Effect of strut diameter on compressive behaviour of introduction specimen design for the mechanical char-
selective laser sintered polyamide rhombic dodecahe- acterisation of lattice structures under tensile loading.
dron lattice. In Materials today: proceedings. https://​doi.​ J Manuf Mater Process. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​jmmp7​
org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​2020.​09.​684 010037
8. Bai L, Gong C, Chen X, Sun Y, Xin L, Pu H, Luo J 20. Drücker S, Schulze M, Ipsen H, Bandegani L, Hoch H,
(2020) Mechanical properties and energy absorption Kluge M, Fiedler B (2021) Experimental and numerical
capabilities of functionally graded lattice structures: mechanical characterization of additively manufactured
experiments and simulations. Int J Mech Sci. https://​doi.​ Ti6Al4V lattice structures considering progressive dam-
org/​10.​1016/j.​ijmec​sci.​2020.​105735 age. Int J Mech Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijmec​sci.​
9. Gorny B, Niendorf T, Lackmann J, Thoene M, Tro- 2020.​105986
ester T, Maier HJ (2011) In situ characterization of 21. Porter DA, Di Prima MA, Badhe Y, Parikh AR (2022)
the deformation and failure behavior of non-stochastic Nylon lattice design parameter effects on additively manu-
porous structures processed by selective laser melting. factured structural performance. J Mech Behav Biomed
Mater Sci Eng A 528(27):7962–7967. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Mater. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jmbbm.​2021.​104869
1016/J.​MSEA.​2011.​07.​026 22. Viccica M, Galati M, Calignano F, Iuliano L (2022)
10. Yan C, Hao L, Hussein A, Raymont D (2012) Evalua- Design, additive manufacturing, and characterisation of a
tions of cellular lattice structures manufactured using three-dimensional cross-based fractal structure for shock
selective laser melting. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 62:32– absorption. Thin-Walled Struct 181:110106. https://​doi.​
38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​IJMAC​HTOOLS.​2012.​06.​ org/​10.​1016/J.​TWS.​2022.​110106
002 23. Drücker S, Lüdeker JK, Blecken M, Kurt A, Betz K,
11. Gümrük R, Mines RAW (2013) Compressive behaviour Kriegesmann B, Fiedler B (2022) Probabilistic analysis of
of stainless steel micro-lattice structures. Int J Mech Sci additively manufactured polymer lattice structures. Mater
68:125–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​IJMEC​SCI.​2013.​ Des 213:110300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​MATDES.​
01.​006 2021.​110300
12. Ahmadi SM, Yavari SA, Wauthle R, Pouran B, Schrooten 24. Vanderesse N, Richter A, Nuño N, Bocher P (2018) Meas-
J, Weinans H, Zadpoor AA (2015) Additively manufac- urement of deformation heterogeneities in additive manu-
tured open-cell porous biomaterials made from six dif- factured lattice materials by digital image correlation:
ferent space-filling unit cells: the mechanical and mor- strain maps analysis and reliability assessment. J Mech
phological properties. Materials. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ Behav Biomed Mater. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jmbbm.​
ma804​1871 2018.​07.​010
13. Leary M, Mazur M, Elambasseril J, McMillan M, Chirent 25. Huynh L, Rotella J, Sangid MD (2016) Fatigue behavior
T, Sun Y, Brandt M (2016) Selective laser melting (SLM) of IN718 microtrusses produced via additive manufactur-
of AlSi12Mg lattice structures. Mater Des 98:344–357. ing. Mater Des. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matdes.​2016.​05.​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​MATDES.​2016.​02.​127 032
14. Leary M, Mazur M, Williams H, Yang E, Alghamdi A, 26. BS-EN-ISO-527-2 (2012) BS EN ISO 527-2 plastics—
Lozanovski B, Brandt M (2018) Inconel 625 lattice struc- determination of tensile properties, Part 2: test conditions
tures manufactured by selective laser melting (SLM): for moulding and extrusion plastics. Part, 1

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Meccanica

27. Maskery I, Aremu AO, Simonelli M, Tuck C, Wildman 31. Stoia DI, Linul E, Marsavina L (2019) Influence of manu-
RD, Ashcroft IA, Hague RJM (2015) Mechanical proper- facturing parameters on mechanical properties of porous
ties of Ti-6Al-4V selectively laser melted parts with body- materials by selective laser sintering. Materials. https://​
centred-cubic lattices of varying cell size. Exp Mech. doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ma120​60871
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11340-​015-​0021-5 32. Calignano F, Giuffrida F, Galati M (2021) Effect of the
28. McKown S, Shen Y, Brookes WK, Sutcliffe CJ, Cantwell build orientation on the mechanical performance of poly-
WJ, Langdon GS, Theobald MD (2008) The quasi-static meric parts produced by multi jet fusion and selective
and blast loading response of lattice structures. Int J laser sintering. J Manuf Process. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
Impact Eng 35(8):795–810. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​ jmapro.​2021.​03.​018
IJIMP​ENG.​2007.​10.​005 33. British Standards Institute. (1999). ISO 527-1 Plastics—
29. Lei H, Li C, Meng J, Zhou H, Liu Y, Zhang X, Fang D determination of tensile properties—part 1: general prin-
(2019) Evaluation of compressive properties of SLM- ciples. ISO standard
fabricated multi-layer lattice structures by experimental
test and μ-CT-based finite element analysis. Mater Des Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
169:107685. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​MATDES.​2019.​ to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
107685 affiliations.
30. Mazur M, Leary M, McMillan M, Sun S, Shidid D,
Brandt M (2017) Mechanical properties of Ti6Al4V and
AlSi12Mg lattice structures manufactured by selective
laser melting (SLM). Laser Addit Manuf Mater Des Tech-
nol Appl. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​08-​100433-​3.​
00005-1

Vol:. (1234567890)
13