Design, optimization, and validation of mechanical properties of different cellular structures for biomedical application

  • 161 Accesses


Cellular structures are promising applicants for additive manufacturing (AM), due to their best capabilities over solid ones such as high strength-to-weight ratio, having porosity, and light in weight. New vintile cellular structures and with the existing five different cellular structures namely cubic, tetrahedron, hexagon, octagon, and rhombic dodecahedron were designed and the effect of unit size, lattice topology, porosity, and optimization of cellular structures on the mechanical properties were discussed in this study. Eighty-four samples with different cell sizes, lattice topologies, and porosities were printed using VisiJet M3 Crystal material on Projet 3510 HDMax 3D printer. Then, electro-optical microscopic is used to determine the pore size. Based on predesigned cellular structures, finite element analysis (FEA) and experimental work were performed to estimate and evaluate the mechanical properties of cellular structures. Results shown that the cellular structure with vintile lattice topology performs less stress and less deformation than the other cellular structures. The experiment results were in good conformance with the result obtained from simulation. This study is not only limited to cellular structure design for biomedical applications but also compared the mechanical performance of uniform density and variable density cellular structures. Both non-optimized and optimized vintile cellular structures is finally tested with FEA and experiments have been carried out on samples fabricated by material jetting, and both results have shown that the optimized cellular structure had much less stress and lower deformation than the non-optimized cellular structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13


  1. 1.

    Gibson LJ (2005) Biomechanics of cellular solids. J Biomech.

  2. 2.

    Deshpande VS, Fleck NA, Ashby MF (2001) Effective properties of the octet-truss lattice material. J Mech Phys Solids 49:1747–1769.

  3. 3.

    Ashby MF (2006) The properties of foams and lattices. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 364:15–30.

  4. 4.

    Panda BN, Technology OF (2015) Design and Development of Cellular Structure for Additive Manufacturing 83

  5. 5.

    Pastrone JGF (2009) Mechanics of Microstructured Solids: Cellular Materials, Fibre Reinforced ... - Google Books, Vol 46. Springer Science & Business Media

  6. 6.

    Liu C, Li F, Ma L-P et al (2010) Advanced materials for energy storage. Adv Mater 22:28–62.

  7. 7.

    Evans AGG, He MYY, Deshpande VSS et al (2010) Concepts for enhanced energy absorption using hollow micro-lattices. Int J Impact Eng 37:947–959.

  8. 8.

    Hutmacher DW (2000) Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials 21:2529–2543.

  9. 9.

    Nguyen J, Park S-I, Rosen D (2013) Heuristic optimization method for cellular structure design of light weight components. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 14:1071–1078.

  10. 10.

    Hedayati R, Sadighi M, Mohammadi-Aghdam M, Zadpoor AAA (2016) Mechanical properties of regular porous biomaterials made from truncated cube repeating unit cells: analytical solutions and computational models. Mater Sci Eng C 60:163–183.

  11. 11.

    Liu F, Zhang DZ, Zhang P, et al (2018) Mechanical properties of optimized diamond lattice structure for bone scaffolds fabricated via selective laser melting. Materials (Basel) 11.

  12. 12.

    Zheng X, Lee H, Weisgraber TH et al (2014) Ultralight, ultrastiff mechanical metamaterials. Science (80- ) 344:1373–1377.

  13. 13.

    Ali D, Sen S (2017) Finite element analysis of mechanical behavior, permeability and fluid induced wall shear stress of high porosity scaffolds with gyroid and lattice-based architectures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 75:262–270.

  14. 14.

    Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D (2005) Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 26:5474–5491.

  15. 15.

    Jetté B, Brailovski V, Dumas M, Simoneau C, Terriault P (2018) Femoral stem incorporating a diamond cubic lattice structure: design, manufacture and testing. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 77:58–72.

  16. 16.

    Yan C, Hao L, Hussein A et al (2015) Microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminium alloy cellular lattice structures manufactured by direct metal laser sintering. Mater Sci Eng A 628:238–246.

  17. 17.

    Kang H, Lin CY, Hollister SJ (2010) Topology optimization of three dimensional tissue engineering scaffold architectures for prescribed bulk modulus and diffusivity. Struct Multidiscip Optim 42:633–644.

  18. 18.

    Higuchi A, Ling QD, Hsu ST, Umezawa A (2012) Biomimetic cell culture proteins as extracellular matrices for stem cell differentiation. Chem Rev 112:4507–4540.

  19. 19.

    Hollister S (2006) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 5:590.

  20. 20.

    Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Medina F et al (2010) Next-generation biomedical implants using additive manufacturing of complex, cellular and functional mesh arrays. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 368:1999–2032.

  21. 21.

    Wauthle R, Van Der Stok J, Yavari SA et al (2015) Additively manufactured porous tantalum implants. Acta Biomater 14:217–225.

  22. 22.

    Hong D, Chou DT, Velikokhatnyi OI et al (2016) Binder-jetting 3D printing and alloy development of new biodegradable Fe-Mn-Ca/Mg alloys. Acta Biomater.

  23. 23.

    Yan C, Hao L, Hussein A, Young P (2015) Ti-6Al-4V triply periodic minimal surface structures for bone implants fabricated via selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 51:61–73.

  24. 24.

    Kadkhodapour J, Montazerian H, Darabi ACC et al (2015) Failure mechanisms of additively manufactured porous biomaterials: effects of porosity and type of unit cell. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 50:180–191

  25. 25.

    Mullen L, Stamp RC, Brooks WK et al (2009) Selective laser melting: a regular unit cell approach for the manufacture of porous, titanium, bone in-growth constructs, suitable for orthopedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 89B:325–334.

  26. 26.

    Han C, Yan C, Wen S et al (2017) Effects of the unit cell topology on the compression properties of porous Co-Cr scaffolds fabricated via selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J 23:16–27.

  27. 27.

    Li X, Wang C, Zhang W, Li Y (2010) Fabrication and compressive properties of Ti6Al4V implant with honeycomb-like structure for biomedical applications. Rapid Prototyp J 16:44–49.

  28. 28.

    Hu LL, Yu TX (2013) Mechanical behavior of hexagonal honeycombs under low-velocity impact – theory and simulations. Int J Solids Struct 50:3152–3165.

  29. 29.

    Sullivan RM, Ghosn LJ, Lerch BA (2008) A general tetrakaidecahedron model for open-celled foams. Int J Solids Struct 45:1754–1765.

  30. 30.

    Babaee S, Jahromi BH, Ajdari A et al (2012) Mechanical properties of open-cell rhombic dodecahedron cellular structures. Acta Mater 60:2873–2885.

  31. 31.

    Wieding J, Wolf A, Bader R (2014) Numerical optimization of open-porous bone scaffold structures to match the elastic properties of human cortical bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 37:56–68.

  32. 32.

    Campoli G, Borleffs MS, Amin Yavari S et al (2013) Mechanical properties of open-cell metallic biomaterials manufactured using additive manufacturing. Mater Des 49:957–965.

  33. 33.

    Wallach JC, Gibson LJ (2001) Mechanical behavior of a three-dimensional truss material. Int J Solids Struct 38:7181–7196.

  34. 34.

    Zhang P, Toman J, Yu Y et al (2014) Efficient design-optimization of variable-density hexagonal cellular structure by additive manufacturing: theory and validation. J Manuf Sci Eng 137:021004.

  35. 35.

    McGregor DJ, Tawfick S, King WP (2019) Mechanical properties of hexagonal lattice structures fabricated using continuous liquid interface production additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 25:10–18.

  36. 36.

    Ahmadi SMM, Campoli G, Amin Yavari S, Sajadi B, Wauthle R, Schrooten J, Weinans H, Zadpoor AA (2014) Mechanical behavior of regular open-cell porous biomaterials made of diamond lattice unit cells. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 34:106–115.

  37. 37.

    Fan HL, Fang DN, Jing FN (2008) Yield surfaces and micro-failure mechanism of block lattice truss materials. Mater Des 29:2038–2042.

  38. 38.

    Sun J, Yang Y, Wang D (2013) Mechanical properties of a Ti6Al4V porous structure produced by selective laser melting. Mater Des 49:545–552.

  39. 39.

    Jung JW, Park JH, Hong JM, Kang HW, Cho DW (2014) Octahedron pore architecture to enhance flexibility of nasal implant-shaped scaffold for rhinoplasty. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 15:2611–2616.

  40. 40.

    Zadpoor AA, Hedayati R (2016) Analytical relationships for prediction of the mechanical properties of additively manufactured porous biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res - Part A 104:3164–3174.

  41. 41.

    Xiao L, Song W, Wang C et al (2015) Mechanical behavior of open-cell rhombic dodecahedron Ti–6Al–4V lattice structure. Mater Sci Eng A 640:375–384.

  42. 42.

    Shulmeister V, Van der Burg MWD, Van der Giessen E, Marissen R (1998) A numerical study of large deformations of low-density elastomeric open-cell foams. Mech Mater 30:125–140.

  43. 43.

    Amirkhani S, Bagheri R, Zehtab Yazdi A (2012) Effect of pore geometry and loading direction on deformation mechanism of rapid prototyped scaffolds. Acta Mater 60:2778–2789.

  44. 44.

    3D Systems (2017) MultiJet Plastic Printers VisiJet ® M3 Advanced Plastics

  45. 45.

    Alaboodi AS, Sivasankaran S (2018) Experimental design and investigation on the mechanical behavior of novel 3D printed biocompatibility polycarbonate scaffolds for medical applications. J Manuf Process 35:479–491.

  46. 46.

    Khoshkhoo A, Carrano AL, Blersch DM (2018) Effect of build orientation and part thickness on dimensional distortion in material jetting processes. Rapid Prototyp J 24:1563–1571.

  47. 47.

    Kechagias J, Stavropoulos P, Koutsomichalis A, et al Dimensional Accuracy Optimization of Prototypes produced by PolyJet Direct 3D Printing Technology. 61–65

  48. 48.

    Kechagias J (2007) Investigation of LOM process quality using design of experiments approach. Rapid Prototyp J 13:316–323.

  49. 49.

    Sigmund O, Maute K (2013) Topology optimization approaches: a comparative review. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48:1031–1055.

  50. 50.

    Wang Y, Zhang L, Daynes S et al (2018) Design of graded lattice structure with optimized mesostructures for additive manufacturing. Mater Des 142:114–123.

  51. 51.

    Huang X, Xie YM (2008) Optimal design of periodic structures using evolutionary topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 36:597–606.

  52. 52.

    Huang X, Xie YM (2010) A further review of ESO type methods for topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41:671–683.

  53. 53.

    Torquato S, Hyun S, Donev A (2003) Optimal design of manufacturable three-dimensional composites with multifunctional characteristics. J Appl Phys 94:5748–5755.

  54. 54.

    Bendsoe MP, Kikuchi N (1988) Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 71:197–224

  55. 55.

    Xie YM, Steven GP (1996) Evolutionary structural optimization for dynamic problems. Comput Struct 58:1067–1073.

  56. 56.

    Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (1999) Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization. Arch Appl Mech 69:635–654.

  57. 57.

    Dai X, Tang P, Cheng X, Wu M (2013) A variational binary level set method for structural topology optimization. Commun Comput Phys 13:1292–1308.

  58. 58.

    Ning J, Liang SY (2018) Model-driven determination of Johnson-cook material constants using temperature and force measurements. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97:1053–1060

  59. 59.

    Ning J, Liang SY (2019) Inverse identification of Johnson-Cook material constants based on modified chip formation model and iterative gradient search using temperature and force measurements. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102:2865–2876.

  60. 60.

    Ning J, Nguyen V, Huang Y et al (2018) Inverse determination of Johnson–Cook model constants of ultra-fine-grained titanium based on chip formation model and iterative gradient search. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 99:1131–1140.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jeng-Ywan Jeng.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abate, K.M., Nazir, A., Yeh, Y. et al. Design, optimization, and validation of mechanical properties of different cellular structures for biomedical application. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 106, 1253–1265 (2020) doi:10.1007/s00170-019-04671-5

Download citation


  • Cellular structure
  • Material jetting
  • Additive manufacturing
  • Biomedical implant
  • Finite element analysis
  • Mechanical property
  • Design and optimization