Enhanced Mechanical Properties of Lattice Structures Enabled by Tailoring Oblique Truss Orientation Angle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significant effect of the strut angle on the mechanical properties of strut‐based lattice structures is systematically explored through experimental and numerical investigations. The highest values of elastic modulus and yield strength, surpassing those observed in cubic lattices with the same relative density, have been experimentally observed at the strut angle of 71.76°. A correlation among elastic modulus, yield strength, and strut angles in lattices, validated by experimental tests, has been identified through developing a theoretical modelling and conducting a detailed finite element analysis. Transition from a bending dominated deformation mechanism to one dominated by compression within the lattice structures has been realized, contingent upon the tailoring of the strut angle. The deformation mechanism of these lattices is significantly influenced by the interplay between ductile bending and brittle failure of the struts. The superior energy absorption and yield strength demonstrated by the optimized lattice design have been underscored through a comparative analysis with other previously reported lattices. These lightweight structures hold promise for applications in the development of mechanical metamaterials with on‐demand mechanical properties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".