Author Contributions
Conceptualization, C.T.; methodology, C.T.; software, Z.W. and Y.W.; validation, Z.W. and Y.W.; formal analysis, Z.L. and H.L.; investigation, Z.L., X.Z. and X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, C.T., Z.W., Z.L., Y.W. and X.Z.; writing—review and editing, Z.L., X.L. and H.L.; visualization, H.L.; project administration, X.L.; funding acquisition, Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Hybrid structure. (a) One-piece printing hybrid structure. (b) Split-printing hybrid structure.
Figure 1.
Hybrid structure. (a) One-piece printing hybrid structure. (b) Split-printing hybrid structure.
Figure 2.
Stress–strain curve of 316 L stainless steel material.
Figure 2.
Stress–strain curve of 316 L stainless steel material.
Figure 3.
Lattice structure reinforced thin-walled tube hybrid structure specimen. (a) Axial compression specimen. (b) Transverse compression specimen. (c) Top view of one-piece printed hybrid structure. (d) Split-printed part. (e) Specimen morphology under electron microscope.
Figure 3.
Lattice structure reinforced thin-walled tube hybrid structure specimen. (a) Axial compression specimen. (b) Transverse compression specimen. (c) Top view of one-piece printed hybrid structure. (d) Split-printed part. (e) Specimen morphology under electron microscope.
Figure 4.
Compression experimental setup.
Figure 4.
Compression experimental setup.
Figure 5.
Simulation diagram of compression simulation.
Figure 5.
Simulation diagram of compression simulation.
Figure 6.
Mesh convergence analysis. (a) Variation of computation time and energy absorption from 0.8 to 1.6 mm for the mesh size of the thin-walled tube. (b) Variation of computation time and energy absorption from 0.34 to 0.5 mm for the mesh size of the lattice structure.
Figure 6.
Mesh convergence analysis. (a) Variation of computation time and energy absorption from 0.8 to 1.6 mm for the mesh size of the thin-walled tube. (b) Variation of computation time and energy absorption from 0.34 to 0.5 mm for the mesh size of the lattice structure.
Figure 7.
Comparison of deformation results between experimental results and numerical simulations. (a) Deformation process of IPLT under axial compression. (b) Deformation process of NPLT under axial compression.
Figure 7.
Comparison of deformation results between experimental results and numerical simulations. (a) Deformation process of IPLT under axial compression. (b) Deformation process of NPLT under axial compression.
Figure 8.
Experimental results and numerical simulation results. (a) Load-displacement curve of IPLT under axial compression. (b) Load-displacement curve of NPLT under axial compression.
Figure 8.
Experimental results and numerical simulation results. (a) Load-displacement curve of IPLT under axial compression. (b) Load-displacement curve of NPLT under axial compression.
Figure 9.
Comparison of deformation results between experimental results and numerical simulations. (a) Deformation process of IPLT under transverse compression. (b) Deformation process of NPLT under transverse compression.
Figure 9.
Comparison of deformation results between experimental results and numerical simulations. (a) Deformation process of IPLT under transverse compression. (b) Deformation process of NPLT under transverse compression.
Figure 10.
Experimental and numerical simulation results. (a) Load-displacement curve of IPLT under transverse compression, (b) Load-displacement curve of NPLT under transverse compression.
Figure 10.
Experimental and numerical simulation results. (a) Load-displacement curve of IPLT under transverse compression, (b) Load-displacement curve of NPLT under transverse compression.
Figure 11.
Experimental profile (a-a) and numerical simulation (b-b) profile of the wire cut after the completion of axial compression.
Figure 11.
Experimental profile (a-a) and numerical simulation (b-b) profile of the wire cut after the completion of axial compression.
Figure 12.
Crashworthiness characteristics of specimens under axial compression. (a) Crashworthiness index of specimens. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness of IPLT and NPLT, including SEA, MCF, CFE.
Figure 12.
Crashworthiness characteristics of specimens under axial compression. (a) Crashworthiness index of specimens. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness of IPLT and NPLT, including SEA, MCF, CFE.
Figure 13.
Crashworthiness characteristics of specimens under transverse compression. (a) Crashworthiness index of specimens. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness of IPLT and NPLT, including SEA, MCF, CFE.
Figure 13.
Crashworthiness characteristics of specimens under transverse compression. (a) Crashworthiness index of specimens. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness of IPLT and NPLT, including SEA, MCF, CFE.
Figure 14.
Mechanical response of specimen under compressive load. (a) Load-displacement curve of specimen in axial compression. (b) Energy absorption-displacement curve of specimen in axial compression. (c) Load-displacement curve of specimen in transverse compression. (d) Energy absorption-displacement curve of specimen in transverse compression.
Figure 14.
Mechanical response of specimen under compressive load. (a) Load-displacement curve of specimen in axial compression. (b) Energy absorption-displacement curve of specimen in axial compression. (c) Load-displacement curve of specimen in transverse compression. (d) Energy absorption-displacement curve of specimen in transverse compression.
Figure 15.
Transverse deflection under axial compression displacement. (a) Definition of the local coordinate system. (b) Relative deflection of the IPLT thin-walled tube. (c) Relative deflection of the NPLT thin-walled tube.
Figure 15.
Transverse deflection under axial compression displacement. (a) Definition of the local coordinate system. (b) Relative deflection of the IPLT thin-walled tube. (c) Relative deflection of the NPLT thin-walled tube.
Figure 16.
Transverse deflection under transverse compression displacement. (a) Definition of the local coordinate system. (b) Relative deflection of the IPLT thin-walled tube. (c) Relative deflection of the NPLT thin-walled tube.
Figure 16.
Transverse deflection under transverse compression displacement. (a) Definition of the local coordinate system. (b) Relative deflection of the IPLT thin-walled tube. (c) Relative deflection of the NPLT thin-walled tube.
Figure 17.
Comparison of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under axial compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different wall thicknesses. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness of IPLT with different wall thicknesses, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 17.
Comparison of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under axial compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different wall thicknesses. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness of IPLT with different wall thicknesses, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 18.
Comparison of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under transverse compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different wall thicknesses. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness for different wall thicknesses, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 18.
Comparison of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under transverse compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different wall thicknesses. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness for different wall thicknesses, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 19.
Comparison of IPLT with different lattice densities under axial compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different lattice densities. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness for different lattice densities, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 19.
Comparison of IPLT with different lattice densities under axial compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different lattice densities. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness for different lattice densities, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 20.
Comparison of IPLT with different lattice densities under transverse compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different lattice densities. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness for different lattice densities, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 20.
Comparison of IPLT with different lattice densities under transverse compression. (a) Load-displacement curves for different lattice densities. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness for different lattice densities, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 21.
Comparison of IPLT at different loading speeds. (a) Load-displacement curves at different loading speeds in axial compression. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness at different loading speeds in axial compression, including SEA, CFE. (c) Load-displacement curves at different loading speeds in transverse compression. (d) Comparison of crashworthiness at different loading speeds in transverse compression, including SEA, CFE.
Figure 21.
Comparison of IPLT at different loading speeds. (a) Load-displacement curves at different loading speeds in axial compression. (b) Comparison of crashworthiness at different loading speeds in axial compression, including SEA, CFE. (c) Load-displacement curves at different loading speeds in transverse compression. (d) Comparison of crashworthiness at different loading speeds in transverse compression, including SEA, CFE.
Table 1.
Mechanical properties of 316 L stainless steel materials.
Table 1.
Mechanical properties of 316 L stainless steel materials.
Materials | Density (g/cm3) | Young’s Modulus (GPa) | Poisson Ratio | Yield Strength (MPa) |
---|
Stainless Steel 316 L | 7.9 | 100 | 0.3 | 670 |
Table 2.
Crashworthiness index of specimens under axial compression.
Table 2.
Crashworthiness index of specimens under axial compression.
| IPLT | NPLT | Tube | Core |
---|
EA (J) | 2236.39 | 1994.35 | 586.87 | 325.20 |
SEA (J/g) | 16.71 | 14.90 | 7.86 | 5.47 |
MCF (kN) | 55.91 | 49.86 | 14.67 | 8.13 |
PCF (kN) | 89.46 | 63.74 | 48.86 | − |
CFE (%) | 62.50% | 78.22% | 30.02% | − |
Table 3.
Crashworthiness index of test pieces under transverse compression.
Table 3.
Crashworthiness index of test pieces under transverse compression.
| IPLT | NPLT | Tube | Core |
---|
EA (J) | 794.54 | 338.35 | 65.05 | 239.26 |
SEA (J/g) | 8.91 | 3.79 | 1.31 | 6.07 |
MCF (kN) | 31.78 | 13.53 | 2.60 | 9.57 |
PCF (kN) | 56.07 | 19.27 | 16.47 | − |
CFE (%) | 56.68% | 70.21% | 15.79% | − |
Table 4.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under axial compression.
Table 4.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under axial compression.
t (mm) | 0.5 mm | 1 mm | 1.5 mm | 2 mm | 2.5 mm |
---|
EA (J) | 1072.21 | 2236.39 | 3636.05 | 4800.73 | 6543.67 |
SEA (J/g) | 11.05 | 16.71 | 21.34 | 23.02 | 26.61 |
MCF (kN) | 26.81 | 55.91 | 90.90 | 120.02 | 163.59 |
PCF (kN) | 33.45 | 89.46 | 159.95 | 216.69 | 272.49 |
CFE (%) | 80.15% | 62.50% | 56.83% | 55.39% | 60.04% |
UL C | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.15 |
Table 5.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under transverse compression.
Table 5.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different wall thicknesses under transverse compression.
t (mm) | 0.5 mm | 1 mm | 1.5 mm | 2 mm | 2.5 mm |
---|
EA (J) | 510.10 | 794.54 | 1104.52 | 1319.84 | 1468.30 |
SEA (J/g) | 7.93 | 8.91 | 9.68 | 9.50 | 8.96 |
MCF (kN) | 20.40 | 31.78 | 44.18 | 52.79 | 58.73 |
PCF (kN) | 20.42 | 56.07 | 85.53 | 111.73 | 139.38 |
CFE (%) | 99.92% | 56.68% | 51.68% | 47.25% | 42.14% |
ULC | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
Table 6.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different lattice densities under axial compression.
Table 6.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different lattice densities under axial compression.
d (mm) | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.7 |
---|
EA (J) | 1506.60 | 1786.26 | 2236.39 | 2891.45 | 3824.70 |
SEA (J/g) | 14.46 | 15.15 | 16.71 | 19.04 | 22.27 |
MCF (kN) | 37.67 | 44.66 | 55.91 | 72.29 | 95.62 |
PCF (kN) | 80.93 | 86.38 | 89.46 | 101.90 | 107.70 |
CFE (%) | 46.55% | 52.70% | 62.50% | 70.94% | 88.78% |
ULC | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.16 |
Table 7.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different lattice densities under transverse compression.
Table 7.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT with different lattice densities under transverse compression.
d (mm) | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.7 |
---|
EA (J) | 367.76 | 566.50 | 794.54 | 1224.01 | 1476.13 |
SEA (J/g) | 5.29 | 7.21 | 8.91 | 12.09 | 12.89 |
MCF (kN) | 14.71 | 22.66 | 31.78 | 48.96 | 59.05 |
PCF (kN) | 51.01 | 53.00 | 56.07 | 59.19 | 65.74 |
CFE (%) | 28.84% | 42.75% | 56.68% | 82.72% | 89.82% |
ULC | 0.29 | 0.26 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.18 |
Table 8.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT under axial compression with different loading speeds.
Table 8.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT under axial compression with different loading speeds.
v (m/s) | 10 m/s | 20 m/s | 30 m/s | 40 m/s | 50 m/s |
---|
EA (J) | 3139.05 | 3240.41 | 3417.13 | 3634.39 | 3890.26 |
SEA (J/g) | 23.45 | 24.21 | 25.53 | 27.15 | 29.06 |
MCF (kN) | 78.48 | 81.01 | 85.43 | 90.86 | 97.26 |
PCF (kN) | 147.69 | 152.66 | 208.71 | 238.32 | 285.14 |
CFE (%) | 53.14% | 53.07% | 40.93% | 38.13% | 34.11% |
ULC | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.19 |
Table 9.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT under transverse compression for different loading speeds.
Table 9.
Crashworthiness index of IPLT under transverse compression for different loading speeds.
v (m/s) | 10 m/s | 20 m/s | 30 m/s | 40 m/s | 50 m/s |
---|
EA (J) | 1099.29 | 1120.72 | 1123.46 | 1184.24 | 1265.59 |
SEA (J/g) | 12.32 | 12.56 | 12.59 | 13.28 | 14.19 |
MCF (kN) | 43.97 | 44.83 | 44.94 | 47.37 | 50.62 |
PCF (kN) | 84.73 | 102.68 | 129.55 | 139.99 | 147.13 |
CFE (%) | 51.89% | 43.66% | 34.69% | 33.84% | 34.40% |
ULC | 0.24 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.27 |