The Comparative Strengths of 3D Printed Microlattice Materials

Overview

Objectives/Goals The objective was to determine which material would be the best candidate to prevent against injuries when placed in football helmets. Methods/Materials 1.27 cm tall 2.7 cm wide cylinder of Vinyl Nitryl foam obtained from UCLA 1.27 cm tall 2.7 cm wide cylinder of 3D printed Microlattice obtained from Architected Materials 1.27 cm tall 2.7 cm wide cylinder of 3D printed Microlattice obtained from Lawrence Livermore University Cylindrical Stencil Instron 5966 universal test machine Bluehill Software Freezer Results Two different micro-lattice materials were compared to vinyl nitryl foam in a compression test. The Architected Materials micro-lattice had the best absorbency. Conclusions/Discussion The Architected Materials 3D printed micro-lattice was able to most efficiently absorb force due to its lattice like structure that allowed it to compress easily but was stiff enough to resist impact. The commercial Vinyl Nitryl foam had the second most consistent stress experienced after compressing the material but was not as efficient as the Architected Materials micro-lattice at higher strains. Finally, the Lawrence Livermore University#s 3D printed micro-lattice compressed too easily and was not stiff enough to resist force. Therefore, the Architected Materials micro-lattice was the most efficient at compressing and resisting impact.

Competition history

• CSEF 2016 Applied Mechanics & Structures · Entry S0301

Resources

• CSEF project summary ↗

Related projects

Closest projects by meaning, across every fair and year in the corpus.

Browse more like this

• All Engineering projects
• CSEF Engineering projects
• Every CSEF 2016 project