Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T19:00:15.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free boundary effects and representative volume elements in 3D printed Ti–6Al–4V gyroid structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2020

Anh Pham,
Cambre Kelly and
Ken Gall
Anh Pham
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Cambre Kelly*
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA; and Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Ken Gall
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA; and Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: cambre.kelly@duke.edu
Get access

Abstract

The adoption of selective laser melting (SLM) for fabrication of porous titanium has resulted in many new investigations into the complex design parameters associated with porous architecture of high spatial resolution. The development of meta-materials has included research into the effects of unit cell architecture (strut versus sheet), porosity, pore size, and other factors on the performance of metallic scaffolds. The current study examined the interactive effects of varying the gyroid sheet unit cell size and overall specimen size on the compressive behavior of Ti–6Al–4V ELI porous scaffolds manufactured via SLM. The increasing unit cell size relative to specimen geometry was found to decrease the compressive strength and stiffness of the overall structure and shift the material fracture mode. The understanding of the relationship between unit cell size and specimen geometry can be used to optimize mechanical properties of implants with constrained volumes and pore/wall size requirements to optimize properties of porous titanium implants for strength and osseointegration.

Keywords

additive manufacturingTiporosity

Information

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 35 , Issue 19: Focus Issue: Porous Metals: From Nano to Macro , 14 October 2020, pp. 2547 - 2555
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bai, L., Gong, C., Chen, X., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Cai, L., Zhu, S., and Xie, S.Q.: Additive manufacturing of customized metallic orthopedic implants: Materials, structures, and surface modifications. Metals 9, 1004 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waulthle, R., Ahmadi, S.M., Yavari, S.A., Mulier, M., Zadpoor, A.A., and Weinans, H.: Revival of pure titanium for dynamically loaded porous implants using additive manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Eng., C 54, 94–100 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maini, L., Sharma, A., Jha, S., and Tiwari, A.: Three-dimensional printing and patient-specific pre-contoured plate: Future of acetabulum fracture fixation? Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 44, 215–224 (2018).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dekker, T.J., Steele, J.R., and Federer, A.E.: Use of patient-specific 3D-printed titanium implants for complex foot and ankle limb salvage, deformity correction, and arthrodesis procedures. Foot Ankle Int. 39, 916–921 (2018).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ni, J., Ling, H., Zhang, S., Wang, Z., Peng, Z., Benyshek, C., Zan, R., Miri, A.K., Li, Z., Zhang, X., Lee, J., Lee, K-J., Kim, H-J., Tebon, P., Hoffman, T., Dokmeci, M.R., Ashammakhi, N., Li, X., and Khademhosseini, A.: Three-dimensional printing of metals for biomedical applications. Mater. Today Bio 3, 100024 (2019).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricles, L.M., Coburn, J.C., and Di Prima, M.: Regulating 3D-printed medical products. Sci. Transl. Med. 10, 461 (2018).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotaru, H.B., Stan, H., Florian, I.S., Schumacher, R., Park, Y-T., Kim, S-G., Chezan, H., Balc, N., and Baciut, M.: Cranioplasty with custom-made implants: Analyzing the cases of 10 patients. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 70, 169–176 (2012).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamid, K.S., Parekh, S.G., and Adams, S.B.: Salvage of severe foot and ankle trauma with 3D printed scaffold. Foot Ankle Int. 37, 433–439 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trauner, K.B.: The emerging role of 3D printing in arthroplasty and orthopedics. J. Arthroplasty 33, 2352–2354 (2018).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pattanayak, D.K., Fukuda, A., Matsushita, T., Takemoto, M., Fujibayashi, S., Sasaki, K., Nishida, N., Nakamura, T., and Kokubo, T.: Bioactive Ti metal analogous to human cancellous bone: Fabrication by selective laser melting and chemical treatments. Acta Biomater. 7, 1398–1406 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yanez, A., Cuadrado, A., Martel, O., Afonso, H., and Monopoli, D.: Gyroid porous titanium structures: A versatile solution to be used as scaffolds in bone defect construction. Mater. Des. 140, 21–29 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidambe, A.T.: Biocompatibility of advanced manufactured titanium implants—A review. Materials 7, 8168–8188 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niinomi, M.: Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 243, 231–236 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geetha, M., Singh, A.K., Asokamani, R., and Gogia, A.K.: Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants—A review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 54, 397–425 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sercombe, T.B.: Failure modes in high strength and stiffness to weight scaffolds produced by selective laser melting. Mater. Des. 67, 501–508 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Frith, J.E., Dehghan-Manshadi, A., Attar, H., Kent, D., Soro, N.D.M., Bermingham, M.J., Dargusch, M.S.: Mechanical properties and biocompatibility of porous titanium scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 75, 169–174 (2017).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadkhodapour, J., Montazerian, H., Darabi, A.C., Zargarian, A., and Schmauder, S.: The relationship between deformation mechanisms and additively manufactured porous biomaterials. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 70, 28–42 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niinomi, M., Liu, Y., Nakai, M., Liu, H., and Li, H.: Biomedical titanium alloys with Young's moduli close to that of cortical bone. Regener. Biomater. 3, 173–185 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vamsi Krishna, B., Bose, S., and Bandyopadhyay, A.: Low stiffness porous Ti structures for load-bearing implants. Acta Biomater. 3, 997–1006 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C.N., Francovich, J., Julmi, S., Safranski, D., Guldberg, R.E., Maier, H.J., and Gall, K.: Fatigue behavior of As-built selective laser melted titanium scaffolds with sheet-based gyroid microarchitecture for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 94, 610–626 (2019).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barba, D., Alabort, E., and Reed, R.C.: Synthetic bone: Design by additive manufacturing. Acta Biomater. 97, 637–656 (2019).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alketan, O., Rowshan, R., and Abu Al-Rub, R.K.: Topology-mechanical property relationship of 3D printed strut, skeletal, and sheet based periodic metallic cellular materials. Addit. Manuf. 19, 167–183 (2018).Google Scholar
Yan, C., Hao, L., Hussein, A., Young, P., Huang, J., and Zhu, W.: Microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminum alloy cellular lattice structures by direct metal laser sintering. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 628, 238–246 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, L., Ding, S., and Wen, C.: Additive manufacturing technology for porous metal implant applications and triply minimal surface structures: A review. Bioact. Mater. 4, 56–70 (2019).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmadi, S.M., Campoli, G., Amin Yavari, S., Sajadi, B., Wauthle, R., Schrooten, J., Weinans, H., and Zadpoor, A.A.: Mechanical behavior of regular open-cell porous biomaterials made of diamond lattice unit cells. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 34, 106–115 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, A., Humayun, A., Boyan, B.D., and Schwartz, Z.: Enhanced osteoblast response to porosity and resolution of additively manufactured Ti–6Al–4V constructs with trabeculae-inspired porosity. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 3, 10–21 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, C.N., Miller, A.T., Hollister, S.J., Guldberg, R.E., and Gall, K.: Design and structure-function characterization of 3D printed synthetic porous biomaterials for tissue engineering. Adv. Healthcare Mater. 7, 1701905 (2017).Google ScholarPubMed
Karcher, H.: The triply periodic minimal surfaces of alan schoen and their constant mean curvature companions. Manuscripta Math. 64, 291–357 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, A.H.: Infinite Periodic Minimal Surfaces Without Self-Intersections (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Electronics Research Center Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970).Google Scholar
Yang, E., Leary, M., Lozanovski, B., Downing, D., Mazur, M., Sarker, A., Khorasani, A., Jones, A., Maconachie, T., Bateman, S., Easton, M., Qian, M., Choong, P., and Brandt, M.: Effect of geometry on the mechanical properties of Ti–6Al–4V gyroid structures fabricated via SLM: A numerical study. Mater. Des. 184, 108165 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, S., Tang, Q., Feng, Q., Song, J., Han, X., and Guo, F.: Mechanical behaviours and mass transport properties of bone-mimicking scaffolds consisted of gyroid structures manufactured using selective laser melting. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 93, 158–169 (2019).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, C., Hao, L., Hussein, A., and Young, P.: Ti–6Al–4V triply periodic minimal surface structures for bone implants fabricated via selective laser melting. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 51, 61–73 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bobbert, F.S.L., Lietaert, K., Eftekhari, A.A., Pouran, B., Ahmadi, S.M., Weinans, H., and Zadpoor, A.A.: Additively manufactured metallic porous biomaterials based on minimal surfaces: A unique combination of topological, mechanical, and mass transport properties. Acta Biomater. 53, 572–584 (2017).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zadpoor, A.A., Uyttendaele, R., Fratila-Apachitei, L.E., and Callens, S.: Substrate curvature as a cue to guide spatiotemporal cell and tissue organization. Biomaterials 232, 119739 (2020).Google Scholar
Tan, X.P., Tan, Y.J., Chow, C.S.L., Tor, S.B., and Yeong, W.Y.: Metallic powder-bed based 3D printing of cellular scaffolds for orthopaedic implants: A state-of-the-art review on manufacturing, topological design, mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Mater. Sci. Eng., C 76, 1328–1343 (2017).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, C.N., Evans, N.T., Irvin, C.W., Chapman, S.C., Gall, K., and Safranski, D.L.: The effect of surface topography and porosity on the tensile fatigue of 3D printed Ti–6Al–4V fabricated by selective laser melting. Mater. Sci. Eng., A 98, 726–736 (2019).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, E.W., Gioux, G., Onck, P., and Gibson, L.J.: Size effects in ductile cellular solids. Part II: Experimental results. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 43, 701–713 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Feih, S., Daynes, S., Chang, S., Wang, M.Y., Wei, J., and Lu, W.F.: Energy absorption characteristics of metallic triply periodic minimal surface sheet structures under compressive loading. Addit. Manuf. 23, 505–515 (2018).Google Scholar
Ashby, M., Evans, T., Fleck, N., and Hutchinson, J.: Metal Foams: A Design Guide (Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Massachusetts, 2000).Google Scholar
Maskery, I., Aboulkhair, N.T., Aremu, A.O., Tuck, C.J., and Ashcroft, I.A.: Compressive failure modes and energy absorption in additively manufactured double gyroid lattices. Addit. Manuf. 16, 24–29 (2017).Google Scholar
Yan, C., Hao, L., Hussein, A., and Raymont, D.: Evaluations of cellular lattice structures manufactured using selective laser melting. Int. J. Mach. Tool Manufact. 62, 32–38 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taniguchi, N., Fujibayashi, S., Takemoto, M., Sasaki, K., Otsuki, B., Nakamura, T., Matsushita, T., Kokubo, T., and Matsuda, S.: Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: An in vivo experiment. Mater. Sci. Eng., C 59, 690–701 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J.P., Habibovic, P., van den Doel, M., Wilson, C.E., de Wijn, J.R., van Blitterswijk, C.A., and de Groot, K.: Bone ingrowth in porous titanium implants produces by 3D fiber deposition. Biomaterials 28, 2810–2820 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabnejad, S., Burnett Johnston, R., Pura, J.A., Singh, B., Tanzer, M., and Pasini, D.: High-strength porous biomaterials for bone replacement: A strategy to assess the interplay between cell morphology, mechanical properties, bone ingrowth and manufacturing constraints. Acta Biomater. 30, 345–356 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, B., Pei, X., Zhou, C., Fan, Y., Jiang, Q., Ronca, A., D'Amora, U., Chen, Y., Li, H., Sun, Y., and Zhang, X.: The biomimetic design and 3D printing of customized mechanical properties porous Ti6Al4V scaffold for load-bearing bone reconstruction. Mater. Des. 152, 30–39 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar