PSI - Issue 28

Fuzuli Ağrı Akçay et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 1399– 1406 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1401

3

Fig. 1. Unit cell configurations: a) cubic vertex centroid, b) cubic diamond, c) cubic fluorite, d) tetrahedral octahedral edge, e) tetrahedral octahedral vertex centroid, f) tetrahedral vertex centroid (Yu et al., 2019).

Cubic vertex centroid and tetrahedral vertex centroid unit cell configurations are of particular interest of this research, as these two cases are the simplest geometrical cases to consider in theoretical development. Geometrical parameters and mechanical properties of cubic vertex centroid and tetrahedral vertex centroid configurations are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Geometrical parameters and mechanical properties of cubic vertex centroid and tetrahedral vertex centroid configurations (Yu et al., 2019). ID Unit cell structure n d ( mm ) Strength ( MPa ) #1 Cubic vertex centroid 8 0.4 15.864 #2 Cubic vertex centroid 8 0.5 22.688 #3 Cubic vertex centroid 10 0.4 35.525 #4 Cubic vertex centroid 10 0.5 51.604 #21 Tetrahedral vertex centroid 8 0.4 8.612 #22 Tetrahedral vertex centroid 8 0.5 12.405 #23 Tetrahedral vertex centroid 10 0.4 10.103 #24 Tetrahedral vertex centroid 10 0.5 14.835

3. Analytical Model The analytical model is developed utilizing plasticity limit analysis. The model is based on beam model with each beam developing a plastic hinge. Plastic hinges develop at locations where the largest bending moments are experienced. Half a cube within the unit cell is considered in derivation to avoid plastic hinges at intersections of the struts, and normal force contribution is neglected. The free body diagram of the analytical model is shown in Fig. 2.