Mechanism-based comparison of Ti-6Al-4V lattice topologies with and without face sheets under quasi-static and dynamic loading

Arslan Bin Riaz M., Ren Z., Rikic A., Guden M.

Smart Materials in Manufacturing, cilt.4, 2026 (ESCI, Scopus)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 4
  • Basım Tarihi: 2026
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.smmf.2026.100145
  • Dergi Adı: Smart Materials in Manufacturing
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Drop-weight impact, Facesheet efficiency matrices, Lattice topology comparison, Numerical modelling, Specific energy absorption, Strut-based lattices
  • Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

A constitutive model calibrated for an electron-beam-melted Ti-6Al-4V Body-Centred Cubic (BCC) lattice was modelled to evaluate nine strut-based lattice topologies different strain rates. For each topology, configurations with face sheets (WFS) and without face sheets (WOFS) were compared using the first-peak stress, ultimate compressive stress (UCS), plateau stress, and specific energy absorption (SEA) performance indicators. The model was initially validated against experiments for a WFS BCC lattice and then used to predict performance across the remaining designs. Face sheet efficiency factors (Formula presented) were introduced to quantify the mass-normalised benefit or penalty of face sheets for each topology, including peak stress, UCS, plateau stress, and SEA. The highest SEA under quasi-static loading was obtained for Face-Body-Centred-Cubic (FBCC)–WOFS, while under dynamic impact, the highest SEA was achieved by Face-Body-Centred-Cubic with stiffener in Z direction (FBCCz)–WOFS, closely followed by Octet–WOFS. Face-Body-Centred-Cubic stiffeners in x, y and z directions (FBCCxyz) exhibited the highest strength response. Collapse was classified into four dominant modes. Shear collapse encouraged load redistribution, mixed (shear–global) collapse rendered homogenous deformation, global failure showed the highest crushing force efficiency, and layer-wise collapse resulted in higher peak stresses.