Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials & Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Design and fabrication of architected multi-material lattices with

tunable stiffness, strength, and energy absorption
Denizhan Yavas, Qingyang Liu, Ziyang Zhang, Dazhong Wu ⇑
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

The flexural modulus and strength of

the multi-material struts decrease
with the increasing core-to-strut
thickness ratio.

The energy absorption capacity of the
multi-material struts is greater than
that of the individual constituents.

Multi-material lattices with tunable
in-plane compression modulus and
strength are achieved.

The multi-material lattices exhibit
greater energy absorption capacity
compared to those of the individual
constituents.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Modern engineering applications require advanced materials that are stronger, tougher, and lighter.
Received 10 November 2021 Nature offers various structural architectures to achieve superior mechanical properties. Inspired by bone
Revised 21 March 2022 with a spongy soft-core and a compact hard-shell, this study introduces architected multi-material lat-
Accepted 29 March 2022
tices with tunable mechanical properties such as stiffness, strength, and energy absorption. The archi-
Available online 31 March 2022
tected lattices are fabricated via multi-material fused filament fabrication. The hard polylactic acid
(PLA) shell of the lattice struts maintains the stiffness, while the soft thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
Keywords:
core enhances toughness and energy absorption capacity. The microstructural and mixed-mode fracture
Architected materials
Lattice structure
characteristics of the PLA-TPU interfaces were examined since the interfacial microstructure and adhe-
Multi-material 3D printing sion are crucial to stress transfer in multi-phase composite materials. This study explores the flexural
Finite element method behavior of the multi-material struts and reveals two distinct failure modes depending on the volume
Soft-hard interfaces fraction of the soft-core through 3-point bend tests. This study demonstrates the bio-inspired design
on a hexagonal planar lattice with a strut thickness-to-length ratio of 0.3. Tunable stiffness, strength,
and energy absorption are achieved by varying the core-to-strut thickness ratio. Compression test results
show that the architected lattices exhibit an energy absorption capacity that is about 2–3 times greater
than that of the constituent single-phase lattices.
Ó 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction ited to expand the boundaries of the current material properties.

Advanced engineering applications require stronger, tougher,
and lighter materials [1]. However, traditional materials are lim-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Dazhong.Wu@ucf.edu (D. Wu).
There is a wide range of strategies to achieve superior and tunable
mechanical properties such as mimicking nature’s materials with
highly sophisticated architectures [2–6]. One approach is to create
micro-architected multi-material structures with a combination of
two or more material phases in a unique microstructure, as
inspired by biological materials such as bone [7] and nacre [8].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110613
0264-1275/Ó 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
For example, combining soft and hard constituents in a ‘‘brick–m
ortar” geometry can offer an excellent combination of strength
and toughness [9]. Alternatively, the concept of lattice materials
is another way of mimicking biological materials, in which the dis-
tribution of porosity is engineered to achieve superior mechanical
properties [3,4]. Although the lattice materials were widely studied
over the past decade, they have recently been gaining popularity
with the latest advancements in additive manufacturing
techniques.
To date, there have been several attempts to design and manu-
facture lattice materials with high specific strength and toughness
[10–19]. These lattice materials were mostly fabricated with either
solid or hollow struts, which were made of a single-phase material
(e.g., polymers, metals, or ceramics). These lattice materials exhib-
ited either high strength (or stiffness) or high ductility (or energy
absorption) depending on the mechanical behavior of the building
material. For instance, ceramic lattices exhibited ultra-high stiff-
ness and strength with a low ductility due to their brittle nature
[10], while polymeric lattices showed significantly high ductility
with limited strength [19]. Therefore, the challenge remains to
achieve a well-balanced combination of different mechanical prop-
erties in single phase lattice materials. Although there has been an
effort on the development of multi-material lattices combining
strength and ductility in the same material by means of hierarchi-
cal topologies [20,21], multi-material designs [22–28], and novel
cell geometries such as gyroid-type with triply periodic minimal
surfaces [29–31], there is still a huge need for the development
of stiffer and tougher lattice materials with high energy absorption.
Especially, multi-material lattice architectures have not been fully
explored due to the material- and manufacturing-related limita-
tions. For example, one of the most critical issues related to mate-
rial selection is the interfacial compatibility of the constituent
materials. The mechanical properties of multi-material lattices
are significantly associated with the interfacial microstructure
and adhesion between the constituents since stress is transferred
through the interfaces. Moreover, as an example of the
manufacturing-related limitations, a multi-material lattice archi-
tecture with a polymer core and a metal shell did not allow the
researchers to investigate the effect of a wide range of shell thick-
ness on the mechanical properties due to the limited capability of
the metal deposition on the core polymer lattice with uniform
thickness [23].
To address these challenges, this study reports an extrusion-
based 3D printing approach for fabricating architected multi-
material lattice materials with tunable mechanical properties such
as modulus, strength, and energy absorption. The struts of the pro-
posed lattice material are designed by combining soft (compliant)
Fig. 1. Overview of the proposed work. (a) 3D schematic of multi-material FFF printing of multi-material honeycomb lattices, (b) An FFF printed 3  3 multi-material
honeycomb lattice with c=t ¼ 1=3 highlighting the details of the cell wall geometry.
2
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
core and hard (stiff) shell thermoplastic polymers, as inspired by
the unique bio-composite architecture of bone uniting soft spongy
core (trabecular bone) and hard compact shell (cortical bone) [2].
3D printing employing multi-material fused filament fabrication
(FFF) is used to fabricate the proposed architected multi-material
lattice structures as shown in Fig. 1(a). The soft core of the lattice
is made of highly stretchable thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
(hyper-elastic up to 400–500% strain), while the hard shell is made
of polylactic acid (PLA) thermoplastic with relatively greater stiff-
ness and strength (Young’s modulus of E = 2.8GPa and failure
strength of rUTS ¼ 52:5MPa). In the proposed sandwich construc-
tion of the lattice struts, the hard shell sustains the in-plane stiff-
ness of the lattice, while the soft core provides enhanced
toughness and energy absorption. In addition, the proposed design
allows tunable mechanical properties by varying the core-to-strut
thickness ratio c/t. The present study uses a planar honeycomb lat-
tice with a hexagonal unit cell and a strut length-to-thickness ratio
of t=l ¼ 0:3 (t ¼ 3 and l ¼ 10mm) for the proof of concept. As an
example, Fig. 1(b) shows an FFF printed 3  3 honeycomb lattice
with c=t ¼ 1=3.
2. Method
2.1. 3D printing and sample preparation
An Ultimaker 3 Extended, FFF-based 3D printer with two
extruders, was used to fabricate specimens. One extruder was used
to print PLA (MatterHackers, CA) filament with a nominal diameter
of 2.85 mm, where printing temperature was 200 °C and printing
speed was 60 mm/s. The other extruder was used to print TPU
95A (Ultimaker, Netherlands) filament with a nominal diameter
of 2.85 mm, where printing temperature was 223 °C and printing
speed was 25 mm/s. The build plate temperature was set to
60 °C during the printing process. The layer thickness for both
PLA and TPU 95A was 100 lm. XYZ build orientations were
adapted for all the samples according to the standard terminology
for additive manufacturing ISO/ASTM 52921–13 [32]. The chosen
printing orientation allows the lattice struts to have the highest
bending stiffness as the printed filaments are aligned with their
longitudinal axes.
The tensile sample geometry was implemented from the stan-
dard test method for tensile properties of plastics ASTM D638-14
[33]. To examine the mode I and mode II interlaminar fracture
toughness, double cantilever beam (DCB) and end-notched flexural
(ENF) test specimens were fabricated in accordance with ASTM
D7905 [34] and ASTM D5528 [35], respectively. For both DCB
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 2. Schematics of the 3D printed samples, showing the printing orientation with
respect to the printing bed.
and ENF samples, a 1 mm thick TPU layer was printed between two
2.5 mm thick PLA adherents with an initial crack. To determine the
flexural properties of the multi-material struts, the multi-material
struts with a length of 60 mm and thickness of 3 mm were fabri-
cated for c=t ratios of 1/6, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. The multi-
material struts were fabricated in compliance with the standard
test geometry in ASTM D790 [36]. The multi-material 3  3 honey-
comb lattices with only three different c/t ratios of 1/6, 1/3, and 2/3
were printed following the standard specimen geometry provided
in ASTM D1621-16 [37], because the implemented c/t ratio resolu-
tion was enough to capture the variation in the compressive prop-
erties of the multi-material lattices with varying c/t ratio. The
lattice density of about 32% was implemented with the strut
thickness-to-length ratio of t=l ¼ 0:3. A schematic of the sample
orientations relative to the printing bed is provided in Fig. 2. Each
specimen was duplicated at least 3 times with 100% infill density
and only one specimen was printed at a time. The specimens were
placed in a dryer box to eliminate the impact of humidity before
testing.
2.2. Microstructural characterization
The microstructure of the PLA-TPU interface was examined
using an optical microscope (Leica DM4 B). The 3D printed PLA-
TPU multi-material samples were first mounted in a low viscosity
resin and hardener epoxy system (Buehler Epoxicure). Then, the
cross-section of the samples was polished with 400, 600, 800,
and 1200-grit grinding papers using a polisher (Buehler VibroMet
2 Vibratory Polisher). The optical microscope images were exam-
ined to evaluate microstructural features such as manufacturing-
induced voids at the PLA-TPU interface.
2.3. Mechanical and fracture tests
The mechanical tests include (1) tensile test for characterization
of bulk mechanical properties of PLA and TPU materials, (2) inter-
facial fracture tests of double cantilever beam (DCB), and end-
notched flexural (ENF) for characterization of the interfacial mode
I and mode II fracture strength and toughness, (3) three-point
bending test for characterization of the flexural behavior of the
multi-material struts, and (4) compression test for characterization
of the in-plane compression behavior of the multi-material lattice
materials.
All the mechanical tests were carried out under displacement
control using the Shimadzu Autograph AGS-X 10kN universal test-
ing frame at room temperature. A ramp displacement profile with
a constant crosshead movement rate of 2 mm/min was applied.
The applied cross-head displacement, force, and in-situ digital
3
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
images of the sample surface were recorded simultaneously. The
in-situ optical images of the sample were recorded using a high-
resolution digital monochrome camera of 2448  2048 pixels (FILR
Systems, Chameleon CM3-U3-50S5M-CS USB3) with a 35 mm lens
(Edmund Optics). An image acquisition rate of 1 Hz was employed
in all tests. The collected images were analyzed using 2D DIC soft-
ware Ncorr [38] to measure the full field strain distribution on the
side surfaces of the samples.
2.3.1. Tensile test
The tensile tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM
D638-14 [33] to determine the bulk mechanical properties of the
3D printed PLA and TPU materials. The tensile test samples were
sized as Type-V described in the standard testing method ASTM
D638-14 [33]. Mechanical tensile wedge grips were used in the
tensile tests. The gage length between the grip surfaces was
adjusted to be 30 mm. A relatively low strain rate of 0.001 1/s
was adopted to eliminate the rate dependent response of PLA
and TPU. The average axial strain measured by DIC was used to
confirm the strain evaluated by the crosshead displacement. The
measured force and displacement data were used to determine
the engineering stress–strain curves. The experimentally obtained
stress-stain curves were fed into the FE model to determine the
constitutive models for both PLA and TPU materials.
2.3.2. Interfacial fracture tests
All DCB and ENF tests were performed in accordance with the
standard testing procedures ASTM D5528-13 [35] and ASTM
D7905-19 [34], respectively. Fig. 3 shows the DCB and ENF test set-
ups and sample geometries. The DCB samples were attached to the
testing frame through the loading blocks located at the end of the
sample arms. The initial crack was 42 mm, which yields a reason-
able initial crack length-to-sample thickness ratio of about 6. The
upper arm of the DCB sample was loaded vertically as shown in
Fig. 3(c). The ENF samples were tested in three-point bending con-
figuration as shown in Fig. 3(d). The distance between the support
pins was adjusted to be 80 mm. A rigid wire with a diamater of
0.5 mm was inserted between the sample arms to reduce the fric-
tion on the pre-crack surface. The initial crack length was 28 mm,
which was greater than 70% of the half support length to maintain
a stable crack growth during the tests.
In both DCB and ENF tests, the sample side surfaces were
painted by a white spray painter, which facilitates tracing the
interfacial crack tip. Optical digital images of the interfacial crack
zone were captured with a frame rate of 1 Hz. Approximately
400 images with a resolution of 15 lm/pixel were collected during
each test. The crack growth length was measured using a digital
image processing tool. The crack growth length was extracted with
an error of about 30 lm (i.e. an absolute error of 0.05% in the mea-
sured crack length). The inset images in Fig. 3(c) and 3(d) show
typical crack growth observed under mode I and mode II fracture,
respectively. All fracture tests were repeated on at least three sam-
ples to determine the statistical variability. For the measured force
P, displacement d, and instantaneous crack length a, the mode I
energy release rate was calculated following the standard data
reduction method provided in ASTM D5528-13 [35] as,
3 Pd
GI ¼ ð1Þ
2 ba
where b is the sample width. On the other hand, the mode II
energy release rate was calculated using the corrected beam the-
ory[34,39,40] as,
9 P2 ða þ 0:42DÞ2
GII ¼ 2 3
ð2Þ
16 Eb h
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 3. The interfacial fracture test samples and testing configurations. (a) DCB and (b) ENF sample geometries, (c) DCB and (d) ENF test configurations. The inset images in (c,
d) show the interfacial crack growth profile.
where h is the half sample thickness, E is the effective flexural
modulus of the sample, and D is the correction factor for the mea-
sured crack length, which takes shear deformation into account
and was approximated as the half sample thickness, (i.e., D  h)
[41]. The results of the interfacial fracture experiments were also
used by the numerical simulations to determine the cohesive trac-
tion separation (TS) curves for mode I and mode II fracture.
2.3.3. Three-Point bending tests of Multi-material struts
The initial elastic response of lattice materials under in–plane
compression or tension is mainly governed by bending behavior
of the cell wall struts. Therefore, a proper understanding of the
flexural behavior of the multi-material struts is essential for
assessing the in-plane compression behavior of 3D printed multi-
material lattice structures. For this purpose, we performed 3-
point bending tests on the 3D printed lattice struts with varying
core-to-strut thickness ratios. All 3-point bending tests were car-
ried out in accordance with ASTM D7264-07 [42] to determine
the flexural modulus, strength, and energy absorption of the 3D
printed multi-material struts. The measured crosshead displace-
ment and force were used to derive the maximum flexural stress
rf and strain ef as,
3PL
rf ¼
2bt2
and
6dt
ef ¼
L2
where P is the measured force, d is the mid-span deflection, t is
the sample thickness, b is the sample width, L is the support span
length. The initial slope of the flexural stress–strain curves was
taken as the effective flexural modulus and the peak stress value
was adapted as the flexural strength of the 3D printed multi-
material struts. The energy absorption (i.e., strain energy density,
W) was calculated by calculation of the area under the flexural
stress–strain curves from ef ¼ 0 to ef ¼ 0:15 such that
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
R 0:15
W ¼ 0 rðeÞde. In addition, the experimentally measured effec-
tive flexural modulus of the 3D printed multi-material struts were
compared with the analytical estimations. The effective flexural
modulus of the multi-material struts was analytically estimated
by the classical (i.e., Euler-Bernoulli) beam theory as,
Icore Ishell
Eeff ¼ Ecore þ Eshell ð5Þ
I I
where Ecore and Eshell are the core and shell’s Young’s moduli and
are substituted by the elastic moduli of TPU and PLA materials,
respectively (i.e., Ecore ¼ ETPU and Eshell ¼ EPLA ). In addition, I is the
second moment of area of the entire cross section such that
I ¼ 1=12bt3 , Icore is the second moment area of the core
I ¼ 1=12bc3 , and Ishell is the second moment area of the shell, which
can be estimated using the parallel axis theorem. Accordingly, Eq.
(5) becomes
c3  3
1 tc 3 ðt  cÞðt þ cÞ2
Eeff ¼ ETPU þ EPLA þ EPLA ð6Þ
t 4 t 4 t3
While one can utilize a more complicated beam theory such as
Timoshenko beam theory, the classical beam theory is considered
adequate for a first order approximation of the effective flexural
modulus of the multi-material struts in this study.
ð3Þ
2.3.4. In-plane compression test of Multi-material lattice
The in-plane compression behavior of the 3D printed multi-
material honeycomb lattices was characterized by the standard
ð4Þ in-plane compression test procedure ASTM C365-16 [43]. The com-
pression loading was introduced through two 8 in. compression
platens. The measured force and displacement were normalized
by the nominal planar area (10  44 mm2) and height of the lattice
samples (46 mm) to calculate the nominal stress and strain,
respectively. The initial slope of the stress–strain curves was eval-
uated as the in-plane compression modulus and the peak stress
was taken as the strength of the 3D printed multi-material lattices.
The energy absorption (i.e., strain energy density, W) was calcu-
lated by evaluating the area under the stress–strain curves from
4
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al. Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613

zero strain e ¼ 0 to the densification strain of about ed ¼ 0:60 such
Re
that W ¼ 0 d rðeÞde.
2.4. Numerical modeling
Finite element (FE) simulations of tensile, DCB, ENF, and 3-point
bend tests were performed to numerically examine the experimen-
tal results. The FE models were developed in a commercial FE soft-
ware ABAQUS 6.13 [44]. The multi-material strut and lattice
sample geometries were modeled with 4-node continuum plane
stress quadrilateral elements with hourglass control (CPS4), while
the fracture sample geometries were modeled with 4-node contin-
uum plane strain quadrilateral elements with hourglass control
(CPE4). The geometry and boundary conditions of each test were
exactly adapted in the corresponding FE simulations. A conver-
gence study was also performed for each model to verify the
mesh-independency of the results. The tensile test geometry was
modeled to extract the constitutive material models of PLA and
TPU materials. An elasto-plastic constitutive material [45] model
with isotropic hardening was used to model the mechanical
response of PLA. The yield strength was governed by a Von-Mises
type isotropic plasticity model. On the other hand, a continuum
mechanics-based hyper-elasticity material model such as
Mooney-Rivlin [41] was used for TPU. For rubber-like TPU, under
uniaxial tension, the true stress – nominal strain behavior can be
expressed as
   
r ¼ 2 C 1 þ C 2 ð1 þ eÞ1  ð1 þ eÞ2  ð1 þ eÞ1
While there are several alternative material models for model-
ing hyper-elastic response of the soft TPU such as Neo-Hookean or
Arruda-Boyce models, the Mooney-Rivlin model was selected
because of its better prediction efficiency within the moderate
strains (100–200%) with only two material parameters (i.e., C 1
and C 2 ). In addition, it should be noted that both PLA and TPU
are assumed isotopic in the numerical simulations. It is widely
accepted that 3D-printed materials are highly orthotopic, signifi-
cantly compliant, and weaker in the printing direction [46,47].
However, in this study, the material orthotropy in the printing
direction was not considered since the bending-dominated defor-
mation of the examined lattices is mainly controlled by the in-
plane mechanical properties. Therefore, it is reasonable to employ
isotropic material models in the numerical simulations. The mate-
rial parameters of the utilized constitutive models were calibrated
using the experimentally obtained stress–strain curves. The cali-
brated material models were used in the numerical simulations
of DCB, ENF, and 3-point bend tests.
The DCB and ENF test models employing the cohesive zone
model (CZM) were used to extract the interfacial mode I and mode
II fracture strength ( r b, b
s ) and toughness (CI ; CII ) of the PLA-TPU
interface, respectively. The model geometries and applied bound-
ary conditions of DCB and ENF models are presented in Fig. 4.
One of the interfaces between TPU layer and PLA substrates was
modeled using cohesive interface to simulate the interfacial crack
growth, while the other was assumed to be perfectly tied. Such a
modeling strategy was implemented based on the experimental
observations. A refined mesh size of 100 lm was used in the cohe-
sive zone. The refined mesh size was chosen to be sufficiently
smaller than the cohesive zone length [48–50].
The cohesive interface was governed by the bilinear cohesive
traction-separation curves [50]. The mode I and mode II cohesive
ð7Þ traction-separation (TS) curves contain three independent fracture
parameters: the initial slope of the curves ðK I ; K II ), the critical cohe-
b, b
sive stresses ( r s ), and cohesive fracture energy (CI ; CII ). For the
sake of simplicity, there is no coupling between mode I and mode
II fracture within initial linear deformation of the cohesive surface
and the initial slopes of mode I and mode II TS curves were taken as
equal to each other (i.e., K I ¼ K II ). The initial slopes of TS curves

Fig. 4. The finite element models employed for the simulations of (a) DCB, (b) ENF, and (c) flexural bending tests showing the details of the geometry and boundary
conditions in the numerical simulations, (d) a close-up view of the PLA-TPU interfaces highlighted as d in (a-c) showing the refined mesh along the cohesive interface between
the PLA and TPU materials, (e) the cohesive traction-separation curves of the PLA-TPU interface for mode I and mode II fracture.

5
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
were taken to be proportional to the adhesive modulus-to-
thickness ratio such that K I ¼ K II ¼ bE=h. Here, b is a scaling con-
stant much greater than unity and is taken as b = 100 [50], which
yields K I ¼ K II  105 MPa=mm: A quadratic nominal traction crite-
rion was employed to evaluate the mixed-mode critical cohesive
strength for damage nucleation, while the critical mixed-mode
fracture toughness for the damage evolution was governed by
the linear power-law criteria in the cohesive surface. The fracture
strength and toughness of the mode I and mode II TS curves were
independently determined by matching the experimentally mea-
sured force–displacement and crack resistance curves from the
DCB and ENF experiments, respectively. A parametric study was
carried out to fine tune the cohesive fracture parameters.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Mechanical behavior of PLA and TPU
Tensile tests were performed to characterize the mechanical
properties of the 3D printed PLA and TPU. The experimental
stress–strain curves were used to calibrate the parameters of elas-
tic–plastic and Money-Rivlin hyper-elastic constitutive models for
PLA and TPU, respectively. Fig. 5 shows the experimentally
obtained engineering stress–strain curves of PLA and TPU, along
with the numerically derived counterparts. The experimental
stress–strain curves are selected from three different tensile tests
and represent the mean mechanical responses. The stress–strain
curve of PLA shows a linear-elastic response up to about 2.5–3%
strain and yielding takes place at about 3% strain and 50 MPa
stress. Then, it shows a strain-softening behavior after the yield
point and the ultimate failure happens at about 6% strain and
44 MPa stress. The PLA tensile samples showed a very minor neck-
Fig. 5. The experimentally obtained engineering stress–strain curves of PLA and
TPU materials, along with the numerically derived counterparts. The inset images
show the numerically derived principal strain distributions in PLA and TPU tensile
samples at 6% and 100% axial strain, respectively.
Table 1
Material constants of elastic–plastic and Mooney-Rivlin hyperplastic constitutive
models of PLA and TPU, respectively.
Material Elastic Plastic
PLA E = 2800 MPa, ry = 50.1 MPa, ep =0rUTS = 52.5 MPa,
m=0.45 ep =0.06
Mooney-Rivlin Hyper-elasticity
TPU C 2 = 4.39 MPa C 1 = 1.15 MPa
6
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
ing prior to the fracture. In addition, the fracture planes of the PLA
samples were found to be normal to the axial stress direction. On
the other hand, the stress–strain curve of the TPU sample shows
a strain-dependent stiffness within the initial portion (e < 20%),
then reveals almost a linear monotonic deformation above 25%
strain. While the entire stress-stain curve of TPU was not shown
in Fig. 5, the failure stress was recorded as 14.8 MPa at 440% strain.
The FE simulations with the calibrated material constants were
able to reproduce the experimental stress–strain curves with high
accuracy. A summary of the material parameters of the employed
constitutive laws is given in Table 1.
3.2. Microstructural characterization of PLA-TPU interface
The morphology of the interface between 3D printed PLA and
TPU was examined. Fig. 6(a) shows a 3D schematic of the 3D
printed PLA-TPU sample used in the microstructural characteriza-
tion. The PLA-TPU interface was inspected on two different planes:
(1) a side surface that is parallel to the build direction and (2) a top
surface that is orthogonal to the build direction. The PLA-TPU inter-
face morphology on the side surface shows a saw-tooth shaped
waviness with presence of interfacial voids as shown in Fig. 6(b).
The saw-tooth shaped interfacial morphology can be attributed
to the limited x-y stage precision of the 3D printer. The limited pre-
cision results in small swings in the location of the interface along
the build direction, which causes the formation of a zig-zag pat-
tern. In fact, such a rough interfacial profile can be beneficial for
manufacturing multi-material materials with enhanced interfacial
adhesion by means of mechanical interlocking. The size of the
interfacial voids can be as large as 125 lm  250 lm as shown
in Fig. 6(c). In addition, Fig. 6(d) shows the PLA-TPU interfacial
morphology on the top surface. Unlike the interfacial morphology
on the side surface, the PLA-TPU interface on the top surface
reveals a straight interfacial morphology with presence of bulk
voids in the TPU layer near the interface. The close-up views of
the interface presented in Fig. 6(e) and 6(f) show an intact inter-
face, with a series of bulk voids about 40–50 lm away from the
interface. The size of the bulk voids was assessed to be about
250 lm  50 lm.
3.3. Fracture behavior of PLA-TPU interface
The interfacial mode I and mode II fracture behavior of the PLA-
TPU interface was examined via DCB and ENF tests to quantita-
tively assess interfacial adhesion between the constituent materi-
als PLA and TPU. Fig. 7(a) shows the experimentally measured
force–displacement curves obtained from two DCB samples along
with the numerically obtained counterparts. The force–displace-
ment curves typically show a linear trend until the interfacial
opening stress reaches the critical level. Thereafter, the force
reduces monotonically with the commencement of the interfacial
crack growth. One of the force–displacement curves exhibits a sec-
ondary peak force. This can be attributed to arrest of interfacial
crack because of locally enhanced adhesion at the PLA-TPU
interface.
The corresponding mode I fracture energy release rate curves
derived by the beam theory (Eq. (1)) are shown in Fig. 7(c) as a
function of the crack length (i.e., mode I interfacial crack resistance
curves). The energy required for the crack nucleation was found to
be about GI ¼ 40J=m2  60J=m2 . One of the DCB samples showed a
decreasing crack resistance curve, while the other exhibited a
modest increasing crack-resistance curve. The steady-state level
of the energy release rate was measured to be about
GIc ¼ 45J=m2 , which was taken as the interfacial mode I fracture
toughness (CI ¼ GIc ). In addition, the FE simulations of the DCB test
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al. Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613

Fig. 6. (a) A schematic of the 3D printed PLA-TPU material showing the build direction and planes of the microscopic inspection, (b) optical microscope image of the PLA-TPU
interface on the side surface highlighting the saw-tooth shaped interfacial morphology and a large interfacial void, (c) a close-up view of area c shown in (b), (d) optical
microscope image of the PLA-TPU interface on the top surface highlighting the straight interfacial morphology with presence of bulk voids in the TPU layer near the interface,
(e) a close-up view of area e in (d), and (f) a close-up view of area f in (e) showing the intact interface and bulk void next to the interface.

Fig. 7. The experimentally measured force–displacement curves obtained from (a) DCB and (b) ENF tests and the corresponding interfacial crack resistance curves for (c)
mode I and (d) mode II interfacial fracture. Blue/red colors denote two different experimental data. The dashed lines in all graphs show the numerically derived counterparts
with the upper and lower bounds of cohesive fracture strength and toughness. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

7
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
Table 2
Mode I and mode II fracture strength and toughness of the examined PLA-TPU
interface.
Parameter Mode I Mode II
Initial slope of traction- K I ¼ 105 MPa=mm K II ¼ 105 MPa=mm
separation curve
Cohesive strength b ¼ 1.0 0:2MPa
r b
s ¼ 2:7  0:5MPa
Cohesive toughness CI = 48  10 J/m2 CII = 220 7 0 J/m2
were performed to numerically extract the upper and lower bound
of the mode I fracture parameters by matching the experimentally
measured force–displacement and crack-resistance curves[59,60].
The numerically derived force–displacement and crack-resistance
curves showed a good agreement with the experimental counter-
parts. The average of the numerically extracted mode I fracture
parameters and the standard deviation are tabulated in Table 2.
Fig. 7(b) shows the experimentally measured force–displace-
ment curves obtained from two ENF samples along with the
numerically derived counterparts. Initially, the force is linearly
increasing with the increasing center-line displacement. Upon
reaching the critical interfacial shear stress level at the PLA-TPU
interface, the interfacial crack starts propagating, which results in
a slight force drop. The whole crack growth process is completed
within this force plateau region. Then, the force begins increasing
since the interfacial crack arrest at the interface underneath the
loading pin due to a large crack-closure stress. Fig. 7(d) shows
the corresponding mode II fracture energy release rate curves
Fig. 8. (a) The experimentally measured flexural stress–strain curves for varying core-to-strut thickness ratios. The variations of (b) flexural modulus, (c) strength, and (d)
strain energy density as a function of the core-to-strut thickness ratio. The inset images in (a) illustrate the 3-point bend configuration and geometry of a multi-material strut.
The symbols in (b-d) show the experimental measurements (open and closed diamonds stand for the interfacial fracture and shell failure, respectively), while the dashed lines
in (b-d) show the numerical and analytical predictions.
8
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
(i.e., mode II interfacial crack resistance curves) derived from the
corrected beam theory (Eq. (2)). Both ENF samples exhibited
increasing crack resistance rate curves with a crack nucleation
energy about GII ¼ 150J=m2  300J=m2 . The increasing trend can
be related to the frictional sliding of the interfacial crack surfaces,
which contributes to the system energy. The upper and lower
bound of the mode II fracture parameters were derived by FE sim-
ulations of the ENF test. A good agreement between the experi-
mentally and numerically obtained results was observed as
shown in Fig. 7(b) and 7(d). The average of the numerically
extracted mode II fracture parameters and the standard deviation
are also provided in Table 2. Noteworthy is that the mode II frac-
ture strength and toughness of the examined PLA-TPU interface
were found to be 3–4 folds of the mode I counterparts. This dis-
crepancy between mode I and mode II fracture toughness is attrib-
uted to the fracture mode-induced toughening in soft adhesive-
hard substrate systems, which also is common for a wide range
of adhesives [51,52].
3.4. Flexural behavior of Multi-material struts
We examined the flexural behavior of the multi-material struts
with varying core-to-strut thickness ratio c=t by 3-point bend tests.
Fig. 8(a) shows a representative set of the experimentally mea-
sured flexural stress–strain curves with varying c=t ratios. The
ratios of 0 and 1 stand for the single-phase PLA and TPU samples,
respectively. The flexural stress–strain curve when the ratio
c=t ¼ 0 shows a linear deformation with a modest nonlinearity
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
up to a critical stress level and then a sudden force-drop because of
semi-brittle fracture. On the other hand, the flexural stress–strain
curve when the ratio c=t ¼ 1 shows a rising trend up to almost
0.15 strain without any trace of permanent deformation. The flex-
ural stress–strain curves of the multi-material struts reveal a linear
deformation within the initial portion of the loading. Upon exceed-
ing the critical stress level (i.e., either the critical interfacial
strength of the PLA-TPU interface or the yield strength of the PLA
shells), the flexural stress reduces to a lower stress plateau and
maintains the stress level up to about 0.15 strain. It should be men-
tioned that none of the multi-material struts revealed catastrophic
failure. The tail of the flexural stress–strain curves with a plateau
stress contributed to the energy abortion capacity of the multi-
material struts under bending deformation. The flexural tests of
the multi-material struts were repeated on 21 samples with 7 dis-
tinct c=t ratios including c=t ¼ 0; 1=6; 2=6; 3=6; 4=6; 3=4 and 1.
The variations of the experimentally measured flexural modu-
lus, strength, and strain energy density as a function of c=t were
summarized in Fig. 8(b), 8(c), and 8(d), respectively. As anticipated,
the flexural modulus shows a gradual decrease as c=t increases.
However, the measured decreasing trend was found to be much
more severe than the predicted variation by the standard beam
theory (Eq (5)). In other words, the analytical estimation overesti-
mated the flexural modulus of the multi-material struts. There are
two plausible explanations for the observed discrepancy. First, the
standard beam theory is valid for perfectly elastic core and shell
materials, which is not completely accurate in this case since
TPU is highly hyper-elastic. In addition, the standard beam theory
does not include the contribution of shear deformation on the
measured stiffness, which can cause the observed overestimation
considering the short support span length in 3-point bend tests
[53]. Second, such a discrepancy can be associated with the large
mismatch between the core and shell moduli (EPLA =ETPU  50).
On the other hand, the FE simulations of the 3-point bend tests
of the struts provide a remarkably decent match with the experi-
mental variation of the flexural modulus. FE simulations employ-
ing the CZM were performed using the upper and lower bounds
of the cohesive fracture parameters. In addition, the FE simulations
with perfectly tied PLA-TPU interfaces were conducted to simulate
the perfect interfacial bonding and explore the limits of the multi-
material struts. All the FE predictions shown in Fig. 8(b) match
each other, as the cohesive interface surface does not affect the ini-
tial bending stiffness of the samples [45]. Similar to the flexural
modulus, the flexural strength exhibited a gradual reduction with
the increasing c=t as shown in Fig. 8(c).
Lastly, the energy absorption capacity of the multi-material
struts was evaluated through the flexural strain energy density,
which is simply the area under the flexural stress–strain curve.
Unlike the flexural modulus and strength, the strain energy density
exhibited a stimulating correlation with the c=t ratio. For c=t < 0:2,
the multi-material struts provided equal or larger energy absorp-
tion than those of the constituent materials. For c=t > 0:2, the
strain energy density gradually decreases to the lower limit evalu-
ated for the bare TPU sample. Most of the experimental measure-
ments fall into the region between the upper and lower limits
evaluated by the FE simulations employing CZM. It is noteworthy
that the flexural strength and strain energy density of two multi-
material struts with c=t ¼ 3=6 and 3=4 (represented by closed dia-
monds in Fig. 8(c) and 8(d)) were measured to be very close to the
strength limit estimated by the FE simulations employing
perfectly-bonded PLA-TPU interfaces. These two samples revealed
a failure due to shell cracking instead of interfacial failure of the
PLA-TPU interface. The larger flexural strength and strain energy
density measured on these two samples were attributed to the
observed failure transition from interfacial fracture to shell crack-
ing. This is a result of improved interfacial fracture properties of
9
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
PLA-TPU interfaces due to a better printing quality. The printing
quality of the TPU and PLA interface was observed to be relatively
random due to the restricted capabilities of the utilized 3D printer.
In addition, no meaningful correlation was noticed between the
printing quality of the PLA-TPU interface and the geometric param-
eters such as c=t. This observation suggests that the flexural prop-
erties of the multi-material struts can be significantly enhanced by
the precise control of the printing parameters.
To understand two distinct failure modes (i.e., shell cracking
and interfacial cracking), Fig. 9(a) shows two flexural stress–strain
curves obtained from 3-point bend tests of two different multi-
material struts with c/t ¼ 1=2. These two samples showed either
shell or interfacial failure. The corresponding in-situ shear strain
distributions captured at three different stages of the bending
deformation are shown in Fig. 9(b) and 9(c) for the shell cracking
and interfacial cracking failure, respectively. The stress–strain
curve of the multi-material strut failed due to shell cracking shows
a linear increase until the yield strength of the PLA shell is attained.
Then, the lower PLA shell undergoes yielding due to the tensile
stress, which results in a plateau in the stress–strain curve. Upon
the tensile stress reaching a critical level, shell cracking occurs
and results in a large stress drop in the stress–strain curve. Despite
the unstable failure, the strut remains its load carrying capacity
with a steady stress at about 8 MPa.
Inspecting the corresponding shear strain maps by DIC shown
in Fig. 9(b), one can note that the TPU core reveals a homogenous
shear deformation until the yielding point (point B), and the shell
cracking can be easily seen at the bottom shell at the centerline
of the sample (point C). The stress–strain curve of the multi-
material strut that failed due to interfacial cracking shows a linear
increase until the critical interfacial stress level at point E, at which
interfacial crack nucleates in the upper PLA-TPU interface as shown
in Fig. 9(c). Then, the flexural stress gradually decreases as the
interfacial crack propagates along the upper PLA-TPU interface
and reaches a steady stress level at about 13 MPa. The shear strain
map captured at point F as shown in Fig. 9(c) clearly displays the
propagation of the interfacial crack toward the centerline of the
sample. The pre-mature failure of the multi-material struts due
to the weak interface limits the flexural strength. Such a weak
PLA-TPU interface can also be linked to high interfacial void con-
centration. In addition, the soft core does not undergo large defor-
mation due to the limited strength, which results in an insufficient
energy absorption capacity. Therefore, the combined experimental
and numerical results suggest that it is important to tailor the
interfaces between the phases in the design and manufacturing
of multi-material struts to achieve their full potential.
3.5. In-plane compression behavior of Multi-material lattices
The in-plane compression behavior of the 3  3 honeycomb lat-
tices made of multi-material struts with varying c=t ratios was
characterized by compression tests. Fig. 10(a) shows a set of nom-
inal stress–strain curves for c=t ¼ 0; 1=6; 2=6; 4=6; and 1. The fully
PLA honeycomb lattice (c=t ¼ 0) exhibits a linear deformation up
to a critical stress level of about 9 MPa. Then a series of cracks
nucleate perpendicular to the struts near the nodes. The shear
strain map in Fig. 10(b) shows the strain concentrations around
the cracks, which are marked by the arrows. Then, these cracks
unstably propagate and result in catastrophic failure, which is
observed as a large stress drop in the stress–strain curve. Following
the failure, the fully PLA honeycomb lattice completely loses its
loading carrying capacity. On the other hand, the nominal stress–
strain curve of the fully TPU lattice (c=t ¼ 1) shows a rising trend
up to almost 0.35 strain and reaches a plateau level at about
0.6 MPa. The fully TPU lattice recovered to its original shape upon
the removal of loading.
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al. Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613

Fig. 9. (a) The experimentally measured flexural stress–strain curves of two different multi-material struts with c=t ¼ 1=2 showing shell and interfacial failure. The
corresponding shear strain distributions measured by DIC at A, B, C and D, E, F stages during the deformation of samples that exhibited (b) shell cracking and (c) interfacial
failure, respectively.

Fig. 10. (a) A representative set of nominal stress–strain curves obtained from in-plane compression tests of the multi-material honeycomb lattices with different c=t ratios.
The vertical strain eyy and shear strain exy maps measured by DIC captured at the peak stresses at points P and A for (b) c=t ¼ 0 and (c) c=t ¼ 1=6, respectively. (d) The optical
images showing the progressive damage of the multi-material honeycomb lattice with c=t ¼ 1=6 captured at points A, B, C, D, and E as marked in (a).

The stress–strain curves of the multi-material honeycomb lat-
tices show a linear deformation up to a critical stress level. Then,
with failure of the PLA-TPU interfaces, the compressive stress
reduces to a lower bound of about 0.6 MPa. Fig. 10(c) shows the
vertical and shear strain maps measured by DIC at the first peak
stress (point A in Fig. 10(a)) for the multi-material honeycomb lat-
tice with c=t ¼ 1=6 . Based on the vertical strain field, one can find
that the horizontal struts denoted by the arrows reveal a high pos-
itive vertical strain, which is the evidence of the interfacial failure
at these PLA-TPU interfaces. This suggests that the compressive
strength of the multi-material lattice correlates with the interfacial
strength of the PLA-TPU interface. However, unlike the fully PLA
lattice, the multi-material lattices exhibit a progressive failure with
multiple peak stresses. The existence of the soft core prevents the
lattice material from a catastrophic failure and maintains the over-
all load carrying capacity of the lattice. Accordingly, the observed
progressive failure of the multi-material lattices leads to a substan-
tial increase in energy absorption compared to the fully PLA lattice,
even though the strength is compromised by the multi-material
lattice design. In addition, each of the stress peaks in the stress–
strain curves of the multi-material lattices is associated with the
collapse of a row of unit cells. Fig. 10(d) depicts the optical images
of the progressive damage for the multi-material lattice with
c=t ¼ 1=6 captured at points A, B, C, D, and E as marked in Fig. 10

10
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 11. The variation of in-plane compression (a) modulus, (b) strength, and (c) strain energy density as a function of the core-to-strut thickness ratio, c=t, (error bars denote
the standard deviation) (d) An Ashby plot depicting specific energy vs. density for the comparison of the energy absorption capacity of the proposed multi-material lattices in
the current study with single-phase polymeric [54–56] and metallic [57,58] lattices with various cell geometries and architectures from the relevant literature.
(a). During each collapse, the multi-material lattices revealed 45°
fracture bands, which results in a slightly unsymmetric collapse
during the densification. The formation of shear bands can be
related to the multi-material strut architecture with the brittle
PLA shells as well as bending-dominated deformation of honey-
comb lattices [29,31]. However, the fully TPU lattice showed a
symmetric collapse due to the ductile nature of the material. It
should also be noted that the multi-material lattice experiences
densification upon exceeding about 60% strain, which leads to a
rise in the nominal stress.
The in-plane compression tests of the multi-material lattices
were repeated on 15 samples with 5 distinct c=t ratios including
c=t ¼ 0; 1=6; 2=6; 4=6; 1. The variations of the experimentally mea-
sured in-plane compression modulus (MPa), strength (MPa), and
specific energy absorption (MJ/m3) with the varying c=t are shown
in Fig. 11 (a-c). One can observe a drastic change in both in-plane
compression modulus and strength as the c=t ratio increases from
0 to 1=6. This suggests that even a thin layer of soft-core inclusion
in the lattice walls causes more than 2-fold reduction in both in-
plane compression modulus and strength. For c=t > 1=6, the in-
plane compression modulus and strength exhibit a gradual
decrease with the increasing c=t. It should be noted that the mea-
sured in-plane modulus and strength are still limited since all the
lattice samples exhibit interfacial failure due to improper interfa-
cial adhesion between soft and hard phases. Therefore, based on
the insight gained from the flexural test of the multi-material
struts, the in-plane compression modulus and strength of the
multi-material lattice can be further improved by stronger PLA-
TPU interfaces.
On the other hand, the multi-material lattice exhibits much
greater strain energy density than those of the individual con-
stituent materials for all the examined c=t ratios. The substantially
increased specific energy absorption capacity arises from the
observed progressive failure of the multi-material lattices. As
shown in the force–displacement curves in Fig. 10(a), the catas-
trophic failure of the hard lattice limits the energy absorption,
while the multi-material lattice reveals a progressive damage with
11
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
multiple force fluctuations, which in turn leads to the substantial
energy absorption. The specific energy absorption capacity of the
proposed multi-material lattices can be further improved by the
fabrication of stronger PLA-TPU interfaces. Fig. 11(a-c) also suggest
that compression modulus, compression strength, and energy
absorption capacity of the multi-material lattices can be tuned
by varying the core-to-strut thickness ratio.
Fig. 11(d) shows a typical Ashby graph of specific energy
absorption vs. density to compare energy absorption capacity of
the proposed multi-material lattices in the current study with
single-phase polymeric [54–56] and metallic [57,58] lattices with
various cell geometries and architectures from literature. The
single-phase polymeric lattices characteristically achieve specific
energy absorption of 0.05–0.5 MJ/m3 within the density range of
5–400 kg/m3. Such a wide variability is associated with the cell
geometries. Whereas, within the range of density, the single-
phase stainless steel (SS) lattices maintain an order of magnitude
greater energy absorption. Noteworthy is that the proposed
multi-material design raises the energy abortion capacity of the
polymeric lattices to the level of that of the metallic lattices with
standard cell geometries. However, it should be mentioned that
newly emerging metallic lattices with novel cell geometries such
as a gyroid-type triply periodic minimal surfaces can greatly out-
perform the regular metallic lattices and maintain energy absorp-
tion capacity of 50–60 MJ/m3 [31]. With the further improvement
of the soft/hard-phase interfaces, the proposed multi-material lat-
tices can possibly make the polymeric lattice materials more
attractive for the practical applications.
4. Conclusions
In summary, architected multi-material lattices with tunable
mechanical properties were designed and fabricated via FFF-
based 3D printing. First, the microstructural characteristics of the
PLA-TPU interfaces were studied via optical microscopy. Then,
interfacial mode I and mode II fracture strength and toughness of
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
the PLA-TPU interface were quantitatively characterized by a com-
bined experimental and numerical study. The flexural behavior of
the multi-material struts with varying core-to-strut thickness c=t
ratios was explored by 3-point bend tests. Lastly, in-plane com-
pression tests were performed to quantitatively determine the
in-plane compression modulus, strength, and energy absorption
capacity of the 3D printed architected multi-material lattices with
varying c=t ratios. The following conclusions were drawn from this
study:
1. A typical 3D printed PLA-TPU interface exhibited distinct
microstructural features depending on the build orientation.
The PLA-TPU interface on a plane parallel to the build direction
revealed a saw-tooth shaped waviness with presence of random
interfacial voids. Such a rough interfacial morphology can play a
significant role in improving interfacial adhesion by means of
mechanical interlocking. However, the PLA-TPU interface on a
plane orthogonal to the build direction showed a flat morphol-
ogy with a series of voids near the interface.
2. The experimentally measured and numerically calibrated mode
I and mode II fracture strength and toughness of the PLA-TPU
interface were r b ¼ 1.0 0:2MPa , b s ¼ 2:7  0:5MPa and
CI ¼ 48  10J=m2 , CII ¼ 220  70J=m2 , respectively. The large
discrepancy between the mode I and mode II fracture parame-
ters is attributed to the fracture mode-induced toughening.
3. The flexural modulus and strength of the multi-material struts
of TPU core and PLA shell gradually decrease with the increas-
ing core-to-strut thickness ratio. The analytical estimation
based on the beam bending theory overestimated the flexural
modulus with the varying core-to-strut thickness ratios.
4. The energy absorption capacity of the multi-material struts
under bending was found to be greater than that of the individ-
ual constituents up to a threshold c=t ratio of 0.2. The numerical
results suggested that both the flexural strength and energy
absorption capacity of the multi-material struts can be further
improved by enhancing the adhesion at the PLA-TPU interfaces.
5. The flexural strength and energy absorption capacity of the
multi-material struts under bending are significantly depen-
dent on the interfacial adhesion strength of the PLA-TPU inter-
faces. The multi-material strut with strong PLA-TPU interfaces
resulted in shell cracking failure, which leads to a notably
higher flexural strength and strain energy density. On the other
hand, the multi-material strut with weak PLA-TPU interfaces
revealed relatively less flexural strength and strain energy den-
sity due to pre-mature interfacial failure.
6. Tunable in-plane compression modulus and strength of the
multi-material lattices were achieved by varying the core-to-
strut thickness ratio. The compression modulus and strength
of the multi-material lattices reveal a similar trend exhibited
in the flexural modulus and strength of the multi-material
struts. The failure strength of the multi-material lattice materi-
als is decided by the interfacial fracture strength of the PLA-TPU
interfaces. Therefore, by improving adhesion between the con-
stituent phases, the in-plane compression modulus and
strength of the multi-material lattices can be significantly
enhanced.
7. Tunable energy absorption capacity of the multi-material lat-
tices was achieved by varying the core-to-strut thickness ratio.
The multi-material lattices showed significantly greater (about
2–3 folds) energy absorption capacity compared to those of the
individual constituents for all the examined core-to-strut thick-
ness ratios. The fully PLA lattice exhibited semi-brittle failure,
while all the multi-material lattices showed a progressive fail-
ure with multiple stress peaks during the deformation, which
increases the energy absorption capacity.
12
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
Data Availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings
cannot be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an
ongoing study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] F. Barthelat, Architectured materials in engineering and biology: fabrication,
structure, mechanics and performance, Int. Mater. Rev. 60 (8) (2015) 413–430.
[2] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK, 1999.
[3] M.F. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2010.
[4] N.A. Fleck, V.S. Deshpande, M.F. Ashby, Micro-architectured materials: past,
present and future, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences 466 (2121) (2010) 2495–2516.
[5] E.B. Joyee, A. Szmelter, D. Eddington, Y. Pan, Magnetic field-assisted
stereolithography for productions of multimaterial hierarchical surface
structures, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 12 (37) (2020) 42357–42368.
[6] M. Lei, W. Hong, Z. Zhao, C. Hamel, M. Chen, H. Lu, H.J. Qi, 3D printing of auxetic
metamaterials with digitally reprogrammable shape, ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces 11 (25) (2019) 22768–22776.
[7] K.A. Hing, Bone repair in the twenty–first century: biology, chemistry or
engineering?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series
A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 362 (1825) (2004) 2821–
2850.
[8] M.A. Meyers, P.-Y. Chen, A.-Y.-M. Lin, Y. Seki, Biological materials: structure
and mechanical properties, Prog. Mater Sci. 53 (1) (2008) 1–206.
[9] A. Jackson, J.F. Vincent, R. Turner, The mechanical design of nacre, Proceedings
of the Royal society of London. Series B. Biological sciences 234(1277) (1988)
415-440.
[10] L.R. Meza, S. Das, J.R. Greer, Strong, lightweight, and recoverable three-
dimensional ceramic nanolattices, Science 345 (6202) (2014) 1322–1326.
[11] T.A. Schaedler, A.J. Jacobsen, A. Torrents, A.E. Sorensen, J. Lian, J.R. Greer, L.
Valdevit, W.B. Carter, Ultralight metallic microlattices, Science 334 (6058)
(2011) 962–965.
[12] M.F. Ashby, T. Evans, N.A. Fleck, J. Hutchinson, H. Wadley, L. Gibson, Metal
foams: a design guide, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2000.
[13] L. Montemayor, J. Greer, Mechanical response of hollow metallic nanolattices:
combining structural and material size effects, J. Appl. Mech. 82 (7) (2015).
[14] X. Zheng, W. Smith, J. Jackson, B. Moran, H. Cui, D.a. Chen, J. Ye, N. Fang, N.
Rodriguez, T. Weisgraber, C.M. Spadaccini, Multiscale metallic metamaterials,
Nat. Mater. 15 (10) (2016) 1100–1106.
[15] X. Zheng, H. Lee, T.H. Weisgraber, M. Shusteff, J. DeOtte, E.B. Duoss, J.D. Kuntz,
M.M. Biener, Q.i. Ge, J.A. Jackson, S.O. Kucheyev, N.X. Fang, C.M. Spadaccini,
Ultralight, ultrastiff mechanical metamaterials, Science 344 (6190) (2014)
1373–1377.
[16] M. Jamshidian, N. Boddeti, D. Rosen, O. Weeger, Multiscale modelling of soft
lattice metamaterials: Micromechanical nonlinear buckling analysis,
experimental verification, and macroscale constitutive behaviour, Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 188 (2020) 105956.
[17] D. Wang, Y.i. Xiong, B. Zhang, Y.-F. Zhang, D. Rosen, Q.i. Ge, Design framework
for mechanically tunable soft biomaterial composites enhanced by modified
horseshoe lattice structures, Soft Matter 16 (6) (2020) 1473–1484.
[18] K. Yu, H. Du, A. Xin, K.H. Lee, Z. Feng, S.F. Masri, Y. Chen, G. Huang, Q. Wang,
Healable, memorizable, and transformable lattice structures made of stiff
polymers, NPG Asia Mater. 12 (1) (2020) 1–16.
[19] Y. Jiang, Q. Wang, Highly-stretchable 3D-architected mechanical
metamaterials, Sci. Rep. 6 (1) (2016) 1–11.
[20] T.A. Schaedler, W.B. Carter, Architected cellular materials, Annu. Rev. Mater.
Res. 46 (1) (2016) 187–210.
[21] T.S. Lumpe, J. Mueller, K. Shea, Tensile properties of multi-material interfaces
in 3D printed parts, Mater. Des. 162 (2019) 1–9.
[22] J. Song, L. Gao, K.e. Cao, H. Zhang, S. Xu, C. Jiang, J.U. Surjadi, Y. Xu, Y. Lu, Metal-
coated hybrid meso-lattice composites and their mechanical
characterizations, Compos. Struct. 203 (2018) 750–763.
[23] T. Juarez, A. Schroer, R. Schwaiger, A.M. Hodge, Evaluating sputter deposited
metal coatings on 3D printed polymer micro-truss structures, Mater. Des. 140
(2018) 442–450.
[24] X. Zhang, J. Yao, B. Liu, J. Yan, L. Lu, Y.i. Li, H. Gao, X. Li, Three-dimensional high-
entropy alloy–polymer composite nanolattices that overcome the strength–
recoverability trade-off, Nano Lett. 18 (7) (2018) 4247–4256.
D. Yavas, Q. Liu, Z. Zhang et al.
[25] J. Mueller, J.R. Raney, K. Shea, J.A. Lewis, Architected lattices with high stiffness
and toughness via multicore–shell 3d printing, Adv. Mater. 30 (12) (2018)
1705001, https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.v30.1210.1002/adma.201705001.
[26] T. Stanković, J. Mueller, P. Egan, K. Shea, A generalized optimality criteria
method for optimization of additively manufactured multimaterial lattice
structures, J. Mech. Des. 137 (11) (2015).
[27] Y.-C. Chan, K. Shintani, W. Chen, Robust topology optimization of multi-
material lattice structures under material and load uncertainties, Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering 14 (2) (2019) 141–152.
[28] J.W. Boley, W.M. van Rees, C. Lissandrello, M.N. Horenstein, R.L. Truby, A.
Kotikian, J.A. Lewis, L. Mahadevan, Shape-shifting structured lattices via
multimaterial 4D printing, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 (42) (2019) 20856–20862.
[29] L. Yang, C. Yan, W. Cao, Z. Liu, B.o. Song, S. Wen, C. Zhang, Y. Shi, S. Yang,
Compression–compression fatigue behaviour of gyroid-type triply periodic
minimal surface porous structures fabricated by selective laser melting, Acta
Mater. 181 (2019) 49–66.
[30] C. Yan, L. Hao, A. Hussein, P. Young, Ti–6Al–4V triply periodic minimal surface
structures for bone implants fabricated via selective laser melting, J. Mech.
Behav. Biomed. Mater. 51 (2015) 61–73.
[31] C. Zhang, H. Zheng, L. Yang, Y. Li, J. Jin, W. Cao, C. Yan, Y. Shi, Mechanical
responses of sheet-based gyroid-type triply periodic minimal surface lattice
structures fabricated using selective laser melting, Mater. Des. 214 (2022)
110407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.110407.
[32] ISO / ASTM52921-13, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—
Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2019.
[33] ASTM D638-14, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[34] ASTM D7905 / D7905M-19e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of the
Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Matrix Composites, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2019.
[35] ASTM D5528-13, Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture
Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[36] ASTM D790-17, Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced
and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[37] ASTM D1621-16, Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid
Cellular Plastics, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[38] J. Blaber, B. Adair, A. Antoniou, Ncorr: open-source 2D digital image correlation
matlab software, Exp. Mech. 55 (6) (2015) 1105–1122.
[39] Y. Wang, J. Williams, Corrections for mode II fracture toughness specimens of
composites materials, Compos. Sci. Technol. 43 (3) (1992) 251–256.
[40] M.F.S.F. de Moura, M.A.L. Silva, A.B. de Morais, J.J.L. Morais, Equivalent crack
based mode II fracture characterization of wood, Eng. Fract. Mech. 73 (8)
(2006) 978–993.
[41] G. Marckmann, E. Verron, Comparison of hyperelastic models for rubber-like
materials, Rubber Chem. Technol. 79 (5) (2006) 835–858.
13
Materials & Design 217 (2022) 110613
[42] ASTM D7264 / D7264M-07, Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of
Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
[43] Astm, C365 / C365M–16, Standard Test Method for Flatwise Compressive
Properties of Sandwich Cores, ASTM International (2016).
[44] M. Smith, ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.13, Dassault Systèmes
Simulia Corp, Providence, RI, 2013.
[45] M. Mooney, A theory of large elastic deformation, J. Appl. Phys. 11 (9) (1940)
582–592.
[46] D. Yavas, Z. Zhang, Q. Liu, D. Wu, Fracture behavior of 3D printed carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer composites, Compos. Sci. Technol. 208 (2021) 108741.
[47] Y. Song, Y. Li, W. Song, K. Yee, K.-Y. Lee, V.L. Tagarielli, Measurements of the
mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed PLA, Mater. Des. 123 (2017)
154–164.
[48] A. Hillerborg, M. Modéer, P.-E. Petersson, Analysis of crack formation and crack
growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements, Cem.
Concr. Res. 6 (6) (1976) 773–781.
[49] T.L. Anderson, Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications, CRC
press2017.
[50] P.H. Geubelle, J.S. Baylor, Impact-induced delamination of composites: a 2D
simulation, Compos. B Eng. 29 (5) (1998) 589–602.
[51] K.M. Liechti, Y.S. Chai, Asymmetric Shielding in Interfacial Fracture Under In-
Plane Shear, J. Appl. Mech. 59 (2) (1992) 295–304.
[52] V. Tvergaard, J.W. Hutchinson, The influence of plasticity on mixed mode
interface toughness, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41 (6) (1993) 1119–1135.
[53] J. He, M.Y. Chiang, D.L. Hunston, Assessment of sandwich beam in three-point
bending for measuring adhesive shear modulus, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 123 (3)
(2001) 322–328.
[54] F.N. Habib, P. Iovenitti, S.H. Masood, M. Nikzad, Fabrication of polymeric lattice
structures for optimum energy absorption using Multi Jet Fusion technology,
Mater. Des. 155 (2018) 86–98.
[55] M. Mohsenizadeh, F. Gasbarri, M. Munther, A. Beheshti, K. Davami, Additively-
manufactured lightweight Metamaterials for energy absorption, Mater. Des.
139 (2018) 521–530.
[56] X. Chen, Q. Ji, J. Wei, H. Tan, J. Yu, P. Zhang, V. Laude, M. Kadic, Light-weight
shell-lattice metamaterials for mechanical shock absorption, Int. J. Mech. Sci.
169 (2020) 105288.
[57] Y. Wang, X. Ren, Z. Chen, Y. Jiang, X. Cao, S. Fang, T. Zhao, Y. Li, D. Fang,
Numerical and experimental studies on compressive behavior of Gyroid lattice
cylindrical shells, Mater. Des. 186 (2020) 108340.
[58] X. Cao, S. Duan, J. Liang, W. Wen, D. Fang, Mechanical properties of an
improved 3D-printed rhombic dodecahedron stainless steel lattice structure of
variable cross section, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 145 (2018) 53–63.
[59] Denizhan Yavas et al., Mode-I fracture toughness and surface morphology
evolution for contaminated adhesively bonded composite structures.,
Composite Structures (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2018.07.014.
[60] Denizhan Yavas et al., Prediction of interfacial surface energy and effective
fracture energy from contaminant concentration in polymer-based interfaces,
Journal of Applied Mechanics (2017), https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035931.