Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Mechanical behaviour of flexible 3D printed gyroid structures as a tuneable

replacement for soft padding foam
David W. Holmes a, b, *, Dilpreet Singh a, b, Riki Lamont a, Ryan Daley c, David P. Forrestal c,
Peter Slattery d, Edmund Pickering a, b, Naomi C. Paxton a, b, Sean K. Powell a, b, Maria
A. Woodruff a, b
a
School of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
b
Centre for Biomedical Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
c
Herston Biofabrication Institute, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia
d
Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Services, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Various areas of healthcare utilise custom foam cushioning to treat or mitigate conditions like pressure ulcers, or
Metamaterials to provide personalised support structures for patients with specific clinical needs. Polyurethane foams are often
Gyroid used; however, such materials require significant time and expertise to combine different foam types into a
Flexible filament
device that provides sufficient structural support in some areas, with soft pressure distribution in others. In this
Foam
Mechanical response
paper, flexible 3D printed gyroid based metamaterials are investigated as a tuneable replacement for poly­
Fused filament fabrication (FFF) urethane foams. The impact of changing key gyroid structural characteristics on the material’s mechanical
Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) response is examined. Samples with six different unit cell geometries for each of two flexible TPU 3D printing
filaments (NinjaFlex and Flexion X60) were produced using fused filament fabrication, tested, and compared to
three types of conventional polyurethane rehabilitation foam. Compression tests were conducted focussing on
compressive stress-strain response, strain rate effect, print layer effect, and cyclic fatigue behaviour. In all tests it
was observed that gyroid samples of both filament types were able to produce compressive responses comparable
to the foams. Solid volume fraction was determined as the critical gyroid geometric parameter that influenced
compressive response, and solid volume fractions capable of reproducing the specific response of each of the
three rehab foams were determined. It is shown that 3D printed gyroid materials are a viable replacement for soft
polyurethane foams, and the direct control of material response possible with simple geometric changes means
such metamaterials may lead to improved optimisation of rehabilitation cushions.

1. Introduction
Pressure ulcers, also known as decubitus ulcers; bed sores; pressure
sores; or pressure injuries, are a significant contributor to patient
discomfort and morbidity in the modern healthcare system. Circum­
stances that may result in pressure ulcers typically involve small sus­
tained pressure, shear, and/or friction on a person’s skin [1,2]. This
could result from extended confinement to bed due to immobility or
illness, use of a wheelchair, or other circumstances where
semi-permanent skin contact is present (like for prosthetics). To prevent
pressure ulcers, specialised support structures are typically implemented
and often take the form of overlays that more evenly distribute associ­
ated contact loads [3]. In the case of wheelchairs, custom contoured
foam cushions with layers of different density foam or shaping elements
are typically implemented to prevent pressure injuries [4]. The
patient-specific nature of such a solution, however, requires significant
time, cost, and expertise to produce. Temperature regulation and
cleaning of existing foam solutions is also challenging.
In many areas of healthcare, when patient specific solutions are
needed, additive manufacturing or “3D printing” has found wide
ranging application. By connecting digital scanning technologies, com­
puter modelling, and cost-effective one-off manufacturing, additive
manufacturing is having significant impact in the areas of implants [5,
6], prosthetics [7], scaffolds [8–10], dentistry [11–13], and other areas
of clinical importance [14,15]. Additive manufacturing technologies
have also been employed as a fabrication method for complex and

* Correspondence to: Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
E-mail address: d.holmes@qut.edu.au (D.W. Holmes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102555
Received 30 August 2021; Received in revised form 14 November 2021; Accepted 8 December 2021
Available online 11 December 2021
2214-8604/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D.W. Holmes et al.
flexible metamaterial structures, due to their ability to produce previ­
ously impractical lattice geometries [16–19]. Some 3D printed meta­
materials have been shown to mimic the behaviour of soft foams [20],
while others have demonstrated tunability of mechanical response via
control of scaffold structural characteristics [21]. By utilising the
strength of additive manufacturing technologies for patient custom­
isation, and developing soft materials with tailored mechanical confor­
mity, it would become possible to develop devices that could perfectly
support a specific patient’s body contours. Many metamaterial struc­
tures also have a more open structure than foam, with significant po­
tential benefits for cushion temperature regulation and cleaning. Beyond
healthcare, 3D printed flexible metamaterials would also have applica­
tion in areas like custom seating for motorsports, personalised shoes in
running sports, specialised helmets for impact protection, and a range of
other areas. Significant further investigation is needed, however, to
determine the best material, lattice structure, and structural parameters
that will most effectively enable controlled cushioning behaviours for
such applications.
A growing range of elastomeric materials have been used within 3D
printed lattice structures in recent times, including rubber-like UV cross-
linkable TangoBlack+ [22], polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) silicon rub­
ber [20], tin-catalyzed silicone elastomers [23]1 and the thermoplastic
polyurethanes (TPU) SemiFlex [24], NinjaFlex [25] and most recently
Desmopan 3690 [26]. While the ability of such metamaterials to
reproduce soft foam-like behaviour has been shown in some of these
works, more work is required to determine repeatable structural features
and parameters that would enable controlled tuning of the compressive
response of such materials for custom cushion applications. Emerging
ultra-flexible polyester-based TPU filaments like the Flexion X60 [27]
are also yet to be characterised in the literature and show significant
potential for this application.
While structural optimisation and tuning of flexible metamaterial
structures remains an open research question, investigations on rigid
additively manufactured lattices have received significant attention in
recent years. Spanning materials such as hard plastics (e.g., Polyamide
12, Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS)), and metals (e.g., Al-Si10-
Mg, Ti-6Al-4V, stainless steel), the most applicable of these in­
vestigations look at the mechanical performance of 3D printed lattices
based on shapes derived from differential geometry known as triply
periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) [28]. Such studies have been carried
out on TPMS variants such as Schwarz Primitive, Schoen IWP and
Neovius [28–31], and especially the Gyroid TPMS [21,22,32–38]. The
studies generally vary lattice parameters such as strut/wall thickness,
unit cell size, and corresponding solid volume fraction (net density) to
investigate their effect on mechanical response including compressive
strength, elastic moduli, energy absorption, and other critical measures.
A range of these studies have also looked at functionally graded struc­
tures where localised structural modifications enable local variation in
mechanical response [21,28,31,33,34,38]. The ability to easily control
lattice mechanical response makes such geometries an ideal focus for the
present study.
In this paper we present a systematic investigation into the me­
chanical behaviour of a flexible 3D printed metamaterial structure and
the material and morphological factors that influence its behaviour. We
focus the work on sheet gyroid-based geometries for a range of solid
volume fractions, and test two different TPU filament materials (Nin­
jaFlex and Flexion X60) printed using Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF).
The objective of this work is to investigate the mechanical tunability of
3D printed metamaterial foams and assess their capacity to replicate the
behaviour of traditional elastomeric foams. Results will be compared
with existing soft cushion foams to enable this comparison. A range of
1
Note, the work of Jiang and Wang [23] focusses on casting silicone elas­
tomers within water-soluble 3D-printed scaffold moulds, not directly printing
the materials as filament as in the other examples.
2
Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555
testing will look at compression, strain rate, layer orientation, and fa­
tigue behaviour of the materials, with the aim of sufficiently charac­
terising the metamaterial foams to enable potential future use in medical
pressure offloading and other applications. In the following, Section 2
details the structures and materials used, additive manufacturing pro­
cesses employed, and testing methodology implemented. Section 3 then
details the test results across a range of studies, and associated discus­
sion. Section 4 finally presents conclusions and future work.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Gyroid structure development
A range of sheet gyroid based TPMS geometries will be investigated
in this work to determine the impact of key structural characteristics on
the mechanical behaviour of prints from flexible TPU filament. Sheet-
based gyroids have been selected due to their suitability for 3D prin­
ted structures and the simplicity of tuning the mechanical response
through unit cell size and wall thickness specification [34]. The geom­
etries themselves are based on the theoretical gyroid surface following
the mathematical definition
sin(x)cos(y) + sin(y)cos(z) + sin(z)cos(x) = 0 (1)
where x, y and z are cartesian coordinates ranging between 0 and 2π,
inclusively, and Eq. (1) defines a minimal surface in this space creating a
single zero-thickness unit cell. Scaling this surface to the desired unit cell
side length, repeating the structure to a desired cell count in each di­
rection, and thickening the surface by a desired wall thickness defines
the sheet gyroid solid for printing (see Fig. 1). All sample wall edges
were terminated parallel to the sample sides to minimise any possible
boundary effects between the sample and test platens during testing.
These geometries and the definition of the subsequent STL mesh ge­
ometry for printing were created using the MATLAB 2021a software
(MathWorks, USA).
The specific structural options investigated in this work spanned unit
cell side lengths, s, of 10, 15, and 20 mm, and wall thickness, t, of 0.6
and 1.2 mm. This resulted in 6 different sample structures for each of the
two filament materials investigated. Each sample comprised repeating
cells sufficient to make a 60 × 60 × 60 mm total sample size. The
effective solid volume fraction (SVF) resulting from the produced gyroid
structures is defined following
SVF =
Vwall
(2)
Vwall + Vvoid
with Vwall and Vvoid the volumes of the solid and void respectively
(Fig. 1c). Here, theoretical Vwall was determined directly from the STL
files using MeshLab, version 2016.12 [39]. Vwall +Vvoid is equal to total
sample volume. An analysis of the target, and actual as-printed SVFs is
presented in Section 2.4.
2.2. Flexible TPU filament selection
Filaments chosen for the study were the NinjaFlex filament from
NinjaTek, and Flexion X60 from Diabase Engineering. These two fila­
ments represent some of the most flexible currently available with
filament properties provided in Table 1. Most notably, the Shore hard­
ness of X60 of 60 A is stated by the manufacturer as being the “most
flexible filament on the market” [27], but is yet to be characterised in the
literature. The two filament hardness values chosen ensure the results
represent a range of material options.
2.3. Additive manufacturing for flexible structures
A key consideration when printing soft metamaterial structures is the
technology used to produce the prints. While several softer flexible
D.W. Holmes et al.
Fig. 1. Gyroid structural model showing (a) base surface model, (b) unit cell, and (c) volume element.
Table 1
Manufacturer stated filament properties for the flexible TPUs used in the current
study [27,40].
Filament Shore Elongation at Specific Ultimate tensile
Material hardness break gravity (g/ strength (MPa)
cm3)
NinjaFlex 85A 660% 1.19 26
X60 60A 1000% 1.17 35
filaments have become available in recent years, there has been limited
progress in the availability of FFF equipment tailored for printing such
materials. One extruder with a stated capability of printing filaments
with Shore hardness of 60 A is the Flexion from Diabase Engineering. To
allow for FFF printing of these materials, a Flexion extruder coupled
with a E3D V6 HotEnd was retrofitted to a Prusa i3 MK3S (Prusa, Prague,
Czechia) 3D printer. The short highly constrained filament path of the
Flexion ensures the flexible filament does not experience excessive
buckling leading to the extruder jamming or clogging in the hot end. The
extruder also utilises a rigid cammed tensioning mechanism over the
more common spring-loaded mechanism. This variation instead utilises
the inherent spring like characteristics of the filament to ensure
consistent pressure is applied by the hobbed gear and idler. The printer
uses a smooth PEI powder-coated spring steel sheet as a printing surface
and the extruder used standard brass nozzles. The printer and arrange­
ment are shown in Fig. 2.
2.4. Fused filament fabrication of gyroid samples
The slicing configuration used to convert STL models to printer
toolpaths are critical to the successful printing of flexible materials.
Ultimaker Cura version 4.8.0 was used to produce G-code with a
modified version of the standard PLA profile. The basis of these modi­
fications was derived from recommendations from the manufacturer of
the Flexion extruder, with some parameters tuned for the specific printer
setup and geometries. The line width of 105% of nozzle diameter,
extrusion multiplier of 125% and quick retraction settings of 60 mm/s at
5 mm were as specified by the manufacture. NinjaFlex was printed at
230 ◦ C and the X60 was printed at 215 ◦ C. The hot end temperature also
required small variation (+− 2 ◦ C) between prints to compensate for
environmental factors such as minor ambient temperature and humidity
changes. Print speeds were tuned down from the suggested range of
25–40 mm/s to 12.5–25 mm/s to reduce the chance of poor layer
adhesion and filament jams. The specific gyroid structures printed
required some modification from typical settings. Cooling at a 50% fan
duty cycle was used to reduce droop in the numerous overhangs. The
3
Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555
nozzle diameter and line thickness were selected to be at maximum 50%
of wall thickness to ensure the walls would comprise a minimum of two
lines. Slicing of the model’s thin-walled features using the standard line
pattern infill setting was found to produce a large quantity of shorts lines
perpendicular to the walls. To negate the effects of the rapid extruder
operation and machine vibration resulting from short line infill, a
concentric infill pattern was instead used. This better matched the
profile of the long continuous lines along the gyroid wall and therefore
improved print quality. All samples were printed on a single printer to
further avoid any equipment related variance.
Example printed gyroid samples produced using the above settings
are shown in Fig. 3 for NinjaFlex, and Fig. 4 for Flexion X60. Some minor
print artifacts (stringy filament over-extrusions) can be seen in the
samples produced, especially on the print outer edges. These were more
pronounced for the softer X60 material. However, the prints were
consistent between samples, and of a relatively high quality2 given the
highly flexible nature of the print filament and complexity of models. It
is noted that future advancements in flexible filament extruder tech­
nology that increase resolution (decreasing layer thicknesses particu­
larly) along with increased and optimised print environment control,
would further increase the quality of the prints and remove some small
holes and artifacts.
For each cell and wall size combination, three samples were pro­
duced for use in each compressive test to offer statistical reliability in the
results. An analysis of the target (i.e., MeshLab measured) SVF, with the
actual as-printed SVF based on measured weight and averaged across
the 3 produced samples is presented for the NinjaFlex and X60 filament
classes in Table 2. As-printed solid volume (i.e., Vwall from Eq. (2)) was
determined by dividing the measured mass of the samples by the pub­
lished filament specific gravity (1.19 g/cm3 for NinjaFlex [40] and
1.17 g/cm3 for X60 [27]). Also shown are the mean of actual or
as-printed bulk density, relative standard deviation of actual SVF, and
variation between actual and target SVFs. It can be seen from the table
that the small relative standard deviation of SVFs for each print class
suggests high sample repeatability (relative standard deviation deter­
mined as standard deviation / mean and found to be 1.49% in the worst
case). In each case, variation between target and actual SVF was also
small. Here, actual SVFs were found to be approximately 20% less than
the target SVF in each case, a result expected due to imperfect infill and
filament curvature in 3D printing. The greatest variation was − 28.74%
for 10 mm cell, 1.2 mm wall X60. Overall, the high repeatability of 3D
printed samples was deemed sufficient for the purposes of this study.
2
Based on subjective assessment of structural homogeneity and gyroid wall
consistency throughout each sample.
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Fig. 2. a) Prusa i3 MK3S printer used with Flexion extruder fitted, and b) close-up of Flexion extruder with E3D V6 HotEnd.

Fig. 3. 60 mm3 gyroid printed samples of NinjaFlex at different cell size, and wall thickness: a) 0.6 mm wall, 10 mm cell; b) 0.6 mm wall, 15 mm cell; c) 0.6 mm wall
20 mm cell; d) 1.2 mm wall, 10 mm cell; e) 1.2 mm wall, 15 mm cell; f) 1.2 mm wall 20 mm cell (length scale on zoomed photos shows half unit cell length).

Three categories of polyurethane foam commonly used in clinical
rehabilitation where also tested for comparison with the NinjaFlex and
X60 gyroid structures. The foams chosen for testing were Green
EN36–90, Yellow EN40–230, and Pink MA35–600 foam manufactured
by Dunlop Foams, Australia, representing soft, medium, and firm
response, and the manufacturer specified bulk densities of the foams
were 36, 40 and 35 kg/m3, respectively. Effective SVFs of the foams
were in the range of 3–4% (i.e., approximately comparable to the lowest
SVF gyroids). As with the NinjaFlex and X60, three 60 × 60 × 60 mm
samples of each category were used for each test.
2.5. Testing methodology
2.5.1. Compression testing
Mechanical compression testing of the gyroid printed samples was
performed to determine material loading behaviour. The testing was
carried out, and compression stress-strain characteristics determined,
following the international standards for Polymeric materials, cellular
flexible – Determination of stress-strain characteristic in compression – Part
1: Low-density materials BS EN ISO 3386–1:1997 +A1:2010 and Part 2:
High-density materials BS EN ISO 3386–2:1998 +A1:2010. The 60 mm3
sample size used met that required by the standard (minimum 50 mm

4
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Fig. 4. 60 mm3 gyroid printed samples of X60 at different cell size, and wall thickness: a) 0.6 mm wall, 10 mm cell; b) 0.6 mm wall, 15 mm cell; c) 0.6 mm wall
20 mm cell; d) 1.2 mm wall, 10 mm cell; e) 1.2 mm wall, 15 mm cell; f) 1.2 mm wall 20 mm cell (length scale on zoomed photos shows half unit cell length).

Table 2
Comparison of target (theoretical) vs actual measured solid volume fraction for the NinjaFlex and X60 printed samples. Actual mean SFV calculated based on filament
density and measured sample weights, averaged over the three samples for each cell size / wall thickness.
Material Cell Size Wall Thickness Target Actual Mean Bulk Density Actual Mean Relative Standard Deviation of SVF Variation:
(mm) (mm) SVF (kg/m3) SVF Actual SVF Actual − Target
Target
NinjaFlex 10 0.6 18.46% 172.79 14.52% 0.37% -21.34%
NinjaFlex 15 0.6 12.34% 117.16 9.85% 0.19% -20.22%
NinjaFlex 20 0.6 9.27% 90.85 7.63% 0.51% -17.60%
NinjaFlex 10 1.2 36.38% 343.46 28.86% 0.84% -20.66%
NinjaFlex 15 1.2 24.52% 238.44 20.04% 0.97% -18.29%
NinjaFlex 20 1.2 18.46% 188.47 15.84% 0.45% -14.21%
X60 10 0.6 18.46% 174.33 14.90% 0.58% -19.28%
X60 15 0.6 12.34% 118.7 10.15% 0.24% -17.79%
X60 20 0.6 9.27% 84.17 7.19% 0.65% -22.36%
X60 10 1.2 36.38% 303.28 25.92% 0.61% -28.74%
X60 15 1.2 24.52% 249.8 21.35% 1.49% -12.93%
X60 20 1.2 18.46% 166.39 14.22% 0.26% -22.97%

side), and prior to testing the test samples were conditioned undeflected
and undistorted for at least 16 h at 23 ◦ C and 50% relative humidity.
The gyroid printed samples for each structure and filament type, and
the comparison rehabilitation foams, were tested in triplicate at a strain
rate of 100 mm/min up to a strain of 80% (48 mm compressive
displacement) for five consecutive load-unload cycles using an Instron
5967 Universal Testing Machine (Illinois Tool Works Inc., USA) with
30 kN load cell. The corresponding compressive stress-strain behaviour
was recorded for the last of the five loading cycles as per the method
detailed in the standard. All the samples were subjected to a preload of
0.5 N to maintain initial surface contact between the force platen and
the sample’s top surface throughout the five cycles.
The strain rate for testing samples was chosen as 100 mm/min as per
Part 1 of BS EN ISO 3386, as opposed to 5 mm/min outlined in Part 2.
While two out of the twelve gyroid classes exceed the specified 250 kg/
m3 bulk density limit stated in the scope of Part 1 (i.e., the 10 mm cell,
1.2 mm wall samples for both NinjaFlex and X60, see Table 2), the
targeted rehab foam samples with comparable strength to the gyroids
were all well within the Part 1 specified density range (i.e., 35–40 kg/
m3). Due to this, and because application of the materials investigated in
this work most closely align with soft or “low density” foams, 100 mm/
min was determined to be most appropriate rate for all compression tests
to ensure consistency throughout. The impact that decreasing the rate to
5 mm/min as specified in BS EN ISO 3368 Part 2 has also been inves­
tigated in an additional study set for completeness (see Section 2.5.2).
2.5.2. Strain rate evaluation
Three further gyroid samples of each of the two filament materials
(six samples in total), with 20 mm unit cell size and 1.2 mm wall
thickness were printed to carry out a strain rate dependence study. These
cell characteristics were chosen as a middle range SVF representation of
the whole sample set. The three samples of each material were com­
pressed at a strain rate of 5 mm/min and compared to the three samples
compressed at 100 mm/min. Aside from strain rate, all test procedures
from Section 2.5.1 were upheld for the slower testing. Based on these
tests, the effect of strain rate on the sample compressive behaviour was
studied.

5
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

2.5.3. Print layer orientation testing

A known challenge with 3D printed structures, particularly those
printed using techniques like FFF, is the potential for structural anisot­
ropy relating to print layer orientation. As such, two further samples of
each material (four total), with 10 mm unit cell size and 0.6 mm wall
thickness, were printed to perform layer orientation testing. For this
study, the samples were selected to be middle range in terms of SVF, but
the smaller cell / thinner wall option was chosen as it was expected to be
more likely to produce anisotropic response with thin walls being more
challenging to print consistently. For each filament material, one sample
was tested with print layers oriented horizontally (i.e., parallel to the
test platens), and one sample was tested with layers oriented perpen­
dicular to the test platen. After a minimum recovery period of 16 hr in a
conditioned environment as per the testing standard, each sample was
then tested a second time in the opposite orientation. This ensured a
balance between the need for samples to be free of any potential damage
from previous testing, but also made sure a direct comparison for a
single sample could be made to rule out the influence of any cross-
sample variations. For this testing, 100 mm/min rate and all other test
procedures from Section 2.5.1 were used.

2.5.4. Fatigue testing

Initial cyclic testing was carried out as preliminary proof-of-concept,
due to the importance that fatigue material characteristics have for
foams used in cushioning applications. In this testing, one mid-range
SVF sample each of NinjaFlex and X60 with 20 mm unit cell size and
1.2 mm wall thickness, and one Yellow EN40–230 rehab foam sample,
were subjected to repeated compressive cyclic loading on an Instron
8874-Biaxial Servohydraulic Fatigue Testing machine (Illinois Tool
Works Inc., USA). A triangular waveform for gradual loading/unloading
was applied with an amplitude of 15 mm, a stroke length equivalent to
50% strain (30 mm compressive displacement), and a frequency of 1 Hz.
The samples were preloaded with 15 N force to compensate for sepa­
ration between the force platen and the sample surface resulting due to
elasticity. The samples were subjected to 1000 cycles and the corre­
sponding mechanical behaviour was recorded. A thermal imaging
camera from FLIR was used for recording temperature variation over
repeated loading conditions; model FLIR T660 for gyroids and FLIR ONE
PRO for the rehab foam (Teledyne FLIR LLC, USA).
Fig. 5. Variation in compressive stress between three samples of each gyroid
and foam category at 10% strain (top) and 50% strain (bottom), and the relative
3. Results and discussion standard deviation for each group showing associated variance.

3.1. Sample compressive stress repeatability
The following presents an analysis of the compressive stress repeat­
ability of 3D printed gyroid foams compared to the rehab foam samples,
to assess the consistency of using 3D printing for manufacture. Six
gyroid structures for each of the two filament types and three rehab
foam types were tested, with three different samples for each producing
45 total compression test sets. To analyse the variance between the three
samples for each class, and determine repeatability of the printed sam­
ples particularly, the compressive stress value at 10% and 50% strain for
each test are presented in Fig. 5, along with the associated relative
standard deviation (RSD) for the set. The full compressive stress-strain
plots for the three sets with highest sample variance are presented in
Fig. 6.
The results suggest that the 3D printed gyroid structures and the
rehab foam samples have similar degrees of repeatability, with the RSD
of compressive stress values under 10% for the majority of sample sets.
At 50% strain, one sample from each of the gyroid filament materials,
and two of the rehab foam sets had RSD less than 1%, while the softest of
the rehab foams had the greatest RSD of all samples at 26.82% (at 10%
strain) and 9.84% (at 50% strain). Fig. 6 shows that the spread between
stress curves remains quite consistent throughout the whole strain
range, contributing to the apparent drop in relative standard deviation
observed between 10% and 50% strain. In all cases, the reproducibility
of compressive behaviour of the 3D printed gyroid samples is equivalent
to the rebab foams, demonstrating their potential utility as an effective
substitute for rehab foam.
3.2. Sample large deformation compressive response
This section presents an analysis of the compressive strength and
behaviour of each of the sample sets, analysing the effects of gyroid
structural characteristics and comparing this with the rehab foams.
Images of an indicative compression cycle for one of the NinjaFlex
gyroid tests is provided in Fig. 7. The compression of the gyroids were
characterised by an initial distributed elastic response, followed by a
period of sequential layer-on-layer collapse, and a final densification
stage once all layers were closed on one another (Fig. 7 right). The
rehabilitation foams had a much smaller cell size, however similar
indicative zones were observed in the stress strain curves, suggesting a
broadly similar mechanism.
To compare between structural and material characteristics, an
average of the three stress strain curves for each sample class was
calculated. The resulting average compressive stress-strain curves for
the six different cell and wall size options for NinjaFlex and six cell and
wall size options for X60, and the three classes of rehab foam, are all
presented in Fig. 8. For the same structural dimensions, NinjaFlex

6
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Fig. 6. Comparisons of the compressive stress results between three like samples showing the repeatability of results for each sample set: a) NinjaFlex at 20 mm cell,
0.6 mm wall, b) X60 at 15 mm cell, 1.2 mm wall, and c) Rehab Foam Green EN36-90. In each case, the results represent those with the greatest variation of all in that
material class. Red circles indicate the points captured in Fig. 5. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

Fig. 7. Compressive deformation images for NinjaFlex compression test with SVF 15.84%, 20 mm cell, 1.2 mm wall.

7
D.W. Holmes et al.
Fig. 8. Full compression stress strain test results for a) NinjaFlex sample sets, b)
X60 sample sets, and c) rehab foam sample sets (each line represents an average
result with n = 3).
demonstrated a significantly stiffer compressive response; approxi­
mately double that of X60. The three rehab foam classes corresponded to
the softest options of the gyroid foams. A comparison of the softest two
NinjaFlex, and softest two X60 options is presented with the three rehab
foam curves in Fig. 9 for direct comparison.
The compression response comparison in Fig. 9 shows that of the
gyroid material and unit cell options tested, the 20 mm cell, 0.6 mm wall
X60 samples most closely match the response of the softest Green
EN36–90 rehab foam. Both the 15 mm cell, 0.6 mm wall X60, and the
20 mm cell, 0.6 mm wall NinjaFlex samples matched well with the
8
Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555
Fig. 9. Comparison between rehab foam compressive stress strain plots and
candidate X60 and NinjaFlex topologies of similar strength (average result with
n = 3 for each line).
medium Yellow EN40-230 rehab foam. The stiffest Pink MA35-600
rehab foam can be seen to fall between the 20 mm cell, 0.6 mm wall
NinjaFlex and the 15 mm, 0.6 mm wall NinjaFlex samples. Based on the
shapes of the stress-strain curves, all tested samples exhibited a similar
deformation response as well, characterised by an initial elastic zone, a
shallow sloping central zone, and a steep final densification zone. The
results demonstrate that the compressive response characteristics of the
rehab foam samples can be closely reproduced by the gyroid meta­
material samples, and both X60 and NinjaFlex would present viable
material choices, given careful selection of unit cell characteristics.
As further analysis of the relationship between gyroid structural
characteristics and material response, a common approach in related
research [35,38,41] is to correlate mechanical properties to SVF
(sometimes referred to as relative density). Fig. 10 shows the compres­
sive stress values recorded at 10% and 50% strain, as well as calculated
compressive modulus, and energy absorption per unit volume up to 50%
strain (calculated as area under stress-strain plot), all plotted against
SVF for NinjaFlex and X60 filament with rehab foam values for refer­
ence. The figures show a clear relationship between each mechanical
response and SVF for each filament, and strong correlations with power
law lines of best fit are shown (R2 values provided on each plot). In each
case, the lower SVF variants of each gyroid structure match the range of
the rehab foam samples well, although the calculated SVF for the rehab
foams are less than those of the gyroids. It is also noted that there is a
slight shift in the data between the 0.6 mm wall samples, and the
1.2 mm wall samples, with a slightly stronger response from the 1.2 mm
wall structures for similar SVF (refer to 20–25% SVF range values spe­
cifically in Fig. 10). This can be attributed to the more consistent print
possible with the thicker wall size for all samples, and therefore is
suggested to be a characteristic of printing rather than of structure.
Assuming a sufficient wall size is chosen to avoid any minor print arti­
facts, the data suggests that SVF is the key metric that characterises
gyroid mechanical response, independent of specific cell feature size.
3.3. Loading rate analysis and comparison between samples
An investigation into the influence of strain rate on compressive
stress response for the gyroid foam samples was carried out on mid-
range SVF samples with 20 mm cell and 1.2 mm wall for both Ninja­
Flex and X60 filament. The results of these tests are shown in Fig. 11. As
expected, for each filament material, higher strain rate corresponds to a
higher stress response. The difference between these responses is
modest, with a 20× increase in strain rate corresponding to an increase
in stress of 1.24× for NinjaFlex and 1.46× for X60 (calculated at 10%
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Fig. 10. Comparative analysis of various mechanical responses against solid volume fraction for the investigated materials showing (a) compressive stress values at
10% strain, (b) compressive stress values 50% strain, (c) compressive modulus values, and (d) energy absorbed per unit volume over the first 50% strain. In each case,
both NinjaFlex and X60 results demonstrate a power law fit to the data. For the three rehab foam points in each plot, vertical point position follows Green EN36–90
lowest, Yellow EN40-230 middle, and Pink MA35–600 highest, and SVF was calculated based on the bulk density and an assumed raw polyurethane specific gravity
of 1 g/m3 for comparison purposes.

strain). The stress-strain curves are of comparable shape between the
strain rates indicating that rate shifts stress magnitude but maintains
similar deformation behaviour throughout the testing.
3.4. Effect of layer orientation on mechanical strength
A layer orientation study was performed to investigate the impact
that 3D print layer-based anisotropy has on compressive response. A
middle range SVF for each material was chosen with the smaller 0.6 mm
wall having the greatest likelihood of structural anisotropy due to the
greater challenge of printing thinner walls. Fig. 12 presents results for
the NinjaFlex and X60. Three out of the four gyroid samples (the Nin­
jaFlex sample that is first tested perpendicular to the test platens and
then horizontal to them, and both X60 samples) show a clear trend for
horizontal orientation having a slightly higher stress response when
compared to the perpendicular (i.e., upright) layer orientation. This is
irrespective of whether the horizontal or perpendicular sample orien­
tation test is carried out first. The fourth sample (the NinjaFlex sample
that is first tested with layers horizontal and then perpendicular) also
partially shows this trend except for a small region where the perpen­
dicular test line surpasses the horizontal one (i.e., between 15% and
35% strain, Fig. 12 (a)). This can largely be attributed to minor variance
within the sample. In each case, the difference in compressive stress
between horizontal and perpendicular layer orientation is small and
approaches the sample variation seen within a given sample class (see
Section 3.1). The difference is slightly less for NinjaFlex than for X60 and
is consistent with NinjaFlex being the easier filament to print (i.e., prints
observed to be more consistent and have slightly fewer print artefacts
than X60). No damage or weakening of samples was observed upon re-
testing in the opposite layer orientation, and the consistency of the re­
sults, particularly those observed for X60, indicate that layer orientation
seems to have a small and deterministic impact on stress response.
3.5. Cyclic fatigue behaviour
Cyclic testing was carried out on a representative sample from each
filament type and one rehab foam class to provide preliminary insight
into the fatigue-based behaviour of the gyroid materials, and to identify
any potential differences in cyclic degradation between them and con­
ventional rehab foam used for wheelchair seat applications. Peak stress
value against cycle number, and the full stress strain curves at 1, 100,
and 1000 cycles are presented for NinjaFlex, X60, and Yellow EN40–230
rehab foam in Fig. 13. While 1000 cycles are below realistic fatigue
requirements of cushion materials, the response observed within the
first 1000 cycles is an indicator of longer term behaviour (see for
example the longer term testing of Paul et al. [42] for similar rehab foam
materials), and the preliminary comparison provided is a valuable pre­
lude to more comprehensive fatigue testing to be published elsewhere.

9
D.W. Holmes et al.
Fig. 11. Comparison of average compressive stress vs strain at two different
compressive strain rates for representative NinjaFlex X60 and samples at
20 mm cell, 1.2 mm wall. Results shown are average results from three different
samples for each test. Inter-sample variability was minimal.
Because the tests were carried out at a loading frequency of 1 Hz with
50% compression, this translated to a peak strain rate of 3600 mm/min
which is significantly greater than the previous compressive tests. This
rate is broadly in line with the specified loading rate outlined in the
related international standard: Flexible cellular polymeric materials –
Fig. 12. Comparison of layer orientation tests for a) 10 mm cell, 0.6 mm wall NinjaFlex, and b) 10 mm cell, 0.6 mm wall X60, showing compressive stress vs strain
for samples with print layer in vertical and horizontal orientations relative to the test platens. Vertical and horizontal orientations were tested on the same sample
with vertical first for one, and horizontal first for the other to eliminate any potential history or damage influence from the previous test.
10
Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555
Determination of fatigue by constant-load pounding BS EN ISO 3385–2014
(there, 70 ± 5 strokes per minute is used, i.e., 1.17 Hz). Following the
rate dependence trend of Fig. 11, the higher strain rate used means stress
values observed in the Fig. 13 are greater than those for the low-rate
testing earlier in this work. The higher strain rates also result in a
more pronounced stress peak at yield, in keeping with results for com­
parable polyurethane foams [43]. In this work, compressive fatigue
testing has been carried out on cubic 60 mm3 samples between flat
platens, rather than the larger sheet sizes and complex indentor style
cyclic pounding fatigue testing outlined in BS EN ISO 3385–2014. It is
intended that the full fatigue characterisation outlined in EN ISO
3385–2014 be applied to the gyroid structures in future work.
Throughout the testing here, temperature was recorded using a thermal
camera, and the thermal imagery at the beginning and end of testing is
shown in Fig. 14, with sample central temperature plot against cycle
number in Fig. 15.
Throughout the cyclic compression testing, a similar trend in stress
peak over cycles and stress-strain curve change was seen for all three
materials, with stress magnitude decreasing for the same strain as cycles
progressed and that change progressively becoming less as it
approached an equilibrium value. Mean change in recorded temperature
over the 1000 cycles was observed at + 6.2 ◦ C for NinjaFlex sample,
+ 0.9 ◦ C for X60 sample, and + 0.8 ◦ C for the rehab foam sample
(Fig. 15). The observed heating (Fig. 14) was non-uniform, with areas of
higher and lower temperature than that reported in Fig. 15. Notably, the
observable internal temperature of the NinjaFlex was observed in excess
of 30 ◦ C. The significantly greater stress induced heating of the Ninja­
Flex is attributed to the greater hardness of the filament material (i.e.,
Shore hardness 85 A, compared to 60 A of the X60) and therefore
greater energy involved. This characteristic is demonstrated earlier in
Fig. 10d where the NinjaFlex samples show a greater energy absorption
per unit volume for the same SVF when compared to X60. The tem­
perature increase of the other two materials was seen to be negligible.
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Fig. 13. Cyclic testing for NinjaFlex 20 mm cell, 1.2 mm wall sample, X60 20 mm cell, 1.2 mm wall sample, and Rehab Foam Yellow EN40-230 sample showing (left
plots) peak compressive stress value reached for each of the 1000 cycles, and (right plots) the compressive stress vs strain plots of the 1st, 100th, and 1000th cycle
for each.

For the NinjaFlex sample, the more pronounced decrease in compressive
stress over the 1000 cycles (Fig. 13) may be attributable in part to some
temperature dependant change in material properties. The minor
change in temperature of the other two samples is believed to have had
negligible influence on material response throughout the testing, and
both X60 and the rehab foam stress peaks are seen to asymptote after
approximately 300 cycles. The results indicate that the gyroid samples,
X60 in particular, have a comparable resistance to fatigue-based
degradation to the rehab foam, and this result further supports the
case for use of such metamaterials as a tuneable substitute.
While a 15 N preload was needed to prevent separation between the
platens and the samples during the tests, it did have a differing effect on
each sample. NinjaFlex and X60 samples were harder materials, with
15 N representing only a small proportion of the force response,

11
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Fig. 14. Thermal imagery of cyclic compression testing on gyroid structures; a) NinjaFlex sample in fatigue apparatus, b) NinjaFlex thermal image at 1st compression
cycle, c) NinjaFlex thermal image at 1000th cycle, d) X60 sample in fatigue apparatus41, e) X60 thermal image at 1st compression cycle, f) X60 thermal image at
1000th cycle, g) Rehab Foam Yellow EN40–230 sample in fatigue apparatus, h) Rehab Foam Yellow EN40–230 thermal image at 1st compression cycle, i) Rehab
Foam Yellow EN40–230 thermal image at 1000th cycle32. Temperature reading on thermal imagery is for point at centre of crosshair.

4. Conclusions and future work

This work has focussed on a detailed mechanical characterisation of

Fig. 15. Temperature history of each sample throughout cyclic compression
testing. Temperature reported is at centre of crosshair (Fig. 14).
compared to the rehab foam, which was significantly softer and so the
preload resulted in a non-negligible decrease in range of load cycling on
that sample (as seen in Fig. 13). In future testing, it is suggested that a
lesser preload be used for this material to better capture the full range of
stress within the testing. It is noted that the only change that may be
inferred by exerting a greater stress range on the rehab foam would be to
induce a similar or greater level of cyclic degradation. As such, the
conclusion that the gyroid metamaterials have an equivalent or better
cyclic response to the rehab foam remains valid.
3D printed flexible TPU sheet gyroid based metamaterial structures as a
substitute for conventional polyurethane foams used in rehabilitation
engineering. 3D printing of such metamaterials with controlled me­
chanical response would allow the manufacture of customised and pa­
tient specific foam cushioning, providing a means by which to improve
patient outcomes and avoid or address problems like pressure ulcers.
The open structure of the gyroid shapes also has potential for greater
airflow and egress of fluids when compared to traditional cushioning
foams; features that directly relate to patient comfort and could further
mitigate the development of pressure ulcers [44,45].
Based on the testing carried out, a full summary of mechanical
properties of all investigated lattice and foam materials is provided in
Table 3. The key findings can be summarised as follows:
1. The results strongly indicate that achieving the mechanical response
of soft foams in the full range of those used in rehab applications is
achievable with 3D printed flexible gyroid structures, and
compressive response of such materials can be directly controlled by
tuning cell size and sheet wall thickness to achieve a specific SVF.
2. The compressive stress response, compressive modulus, and energy
absorption of flexible gyroid foams show a power law correlation
with SVF for a given strain, and this is sufficiently independent of the
specific cell characteristics themselves, assuming wall thickness is
sufficient to avoid significant print artifacts.
3. Common 3D printing artifacts such as layer anisotropy and printing
irregularities are shown to have a minimal impact on the tested

12
D.W. Holmes et al. Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555

Table 3 Table 4
Summary of mechanical properties determined for the metamaterial and foam Summary of equivalent solid volume fractions for NinjaFlex and X60 to achieve
structures tested, including compressive modulus E, energy absorbed per unit comparable properties to three tested examples of rehabilitation foam.
volume over 50% strain, W@50%, and 2% offset compressive yield strength, Sy. Equivalent rehab foam Target SVF NinjaFlex Gyroid Target SVF X60 Gyroid
NinjaFlex
Green EN36–90 4.81% 6.93%
SVF 7.63% 9.85% 14.52% 15.84% 20.04% 28.86% Yellow EN40–230 6.91% 10.10%
E (kPa) 177.78 230.37 400.00 715.11 1020.28 1495.19 Pink MA35–600 8.42% 12.51%
W@50% (kJ/ 3.24 6.14 16.11 29.02 49.38 95.14
m3 )
Sy (kPa) 5.64 10.27 26.60 54.80 97.79 157.85 structure of the gyroids and associated advantages for comfort, skin
X60 health, and treatment or mitigation of pressure ulcers, needs to be
SVF 7.19% 10.15% 14.22% 14.90% 21.35% 25.92%
carefully investigated. Finally, the results, insights, and geometric de­
E (kPa) 51.66 98.15 238.52 177.41 407.36 419.17
W@50% (kJ/ 1.10 2.87 10.41 7.79 24.17 28.44 tails presented in this work provide all necessary information to enable
m3 ) controlled production of flexible 3D printed structures to reproduce any
Sy (kPa) 1.85 5.01 20.87 13.79 51.83 45.90 required soft foam material response. Ultimately, the high tailorability
Rehab Foams of these gyroid foams may lead to improved optimisation of rehabili­
Type Green EN36–90 Yellow EN40–230 Pink MA35–600
E (kPa) 30.00 86.67 190.00
tation cushions (such as wheelchair cushions) compared to traditional
W@50% (kJ/ 1.45 3.23 4.34 rehab foams and facilitate improved clinical outcomes for patients.
m3 )
Sy (kPa) 2.21 4.82 7.45 CRediT authorship contribution statement

mechanical properties, with repeatability measures similar to those
of the conventional rehab foams. Anisotropy due to layer orientation
of the printed gyroid structures has also been shown to be minimal
and within the range of sample repeatability.
4. The 3D printed flexible gyroid structures have also been shown to
exhibit minimal strength degradation and show resistance to damage
during preliminary cyclic fatigue testing. Again, when subjected to
cyclic testing, the samples tested produced behaviour directly com­
parable to that of the rehab foam. No issues with damage, print
quality, or de-lamination were observed at any stage of the testing,
including during fatigue testing.
5. In terms of flexible TPU filament, X60 was found to be more chal­
lenging to print accurately due to its highly flexible nature, with
more artefacts visible in the final samples. The material response,
however, was found to be consistent across the samples, with vari­
ances similar to NinjaFlex. X60 also exhibited approximately half of
the stress result of NinjaFlex for the same structural characteristics,
making it a closer analog to the softest rehab foams for the tested
sample sizes.
On the basis of all the tests presented, it is concluded that flexible
sheet gyroid structures present a viable alternative to existing poly­
urethane soft foams for rehab and wheelchair seat cushion applications
from a material response standpoint. While further tests are required to
verify this viability in more comprehensive fatigue and clinical envi­
ronments, the results show that flexible gyroids can reproduce soft foam
response and characteristics extremely closely. Based on the findings, it
is possible to determine a target gyroid SVF that can achieve the exact
mechanical response of the Green EN36–90, Yellow EN40–230 and Pink
MA35–600 rehab foams tested here. These figures are presented in
Table 4 for both NinjaFlex and X60 filaments.
In future, detailed fatigue testing and larger scale sample tests could
further verify viability of the material, and optimised printing methods
could enable larger scale production. Testing in a clinical setting will
also help identify other areas requiring optimisation, and more fully
evaluate the benefits and weaknesses of gyroid based foams for real
wheelchair cushion and rehabilitation applications. For example, any
benefits that may be associated with the significantly more open cellular
4
Note, white X60 filament was used for the fatigue testing to provide com­
parable thermal imagery to the NinjaFlex.
3 Rev. 2015 (9) (2015).
Note, NinjaFlex and X60 thermal images recorded using FLIR T660 thermal
camera, while the Rehab Foam images were recorded using FLIR ONE PRO
camera. The difference was due to equipment availabilities during testing.
Holmes David William: Writing – original draft, Visualization,
Validation, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Conceptualization. Powell Sean K: Writing – review & edit­
ing, Funding acquisition. Woodruff Maria A: Writing – review & edit­
ing, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Funding
acquisition, Conceptualization. Pickering Edmund: Writing – review &
editing. Paxton Naomi C: Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Funding acquisition. Forrestal David: Writing – review & editing,
Investigation, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition. Slattery Peter:
Writing – review & editing, Resources, Funding acquisition. Daley
Ryan: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation,
Conceptualization. Singh Dilpreet: Writing – original draft, Validation,
Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. Lamont Riki: Writing –
original draft, Software, Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Maria A Woodruff reports financial support was provided by Royal
Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. Peter Slattery reports a relationship
with STARS, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Qld Health that
includes: employment. David Forrestal reports a relationship with Metro
North Hospital and Health Service, Qld Health that includes: employ­
ment. Ryan Daley reports a relationship with Metro North Hospital and
Health Service, Qld Health that includes: employment.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the Jamieson Trauma Institute, Royal Brisbane and
Women’s Hospital, Australia for seed funding, Advance Queensland,
Industry Research Fellowship, Australia funding for SKP (AQIRF2018)
and NCP (AQIRF2020). We also acknowledge QUT Technical Services
for mechanical testing support.
References
[1] S. Bhattacharya, R.K. Mishra, Pressure ulcers: Current understanding and newer
modalities of treatment, Indian J. Plast. Surg. 48 (01) (2015) 004–016.
[2] A. Goossens, R.H. Snijders, C.J. Holscher, T.G. Heerens, W.C. Holman, Shear stress
measured on beds and wheelchairs, Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 29 (3) (1997)
131–136.
[3] E. McInnes, A. Jammali-Blasi, S.E.M. Bell-Syer, J.C. Dumville, V. Middleton,
N. Cullum, Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention, Cochrane Database Syst.
[4] M.J. Rosenthal, R.M. Felton, D.L. Hileman, M. Lee, M. Friedman, J.H. Navach,
A wheelchair cushion designed to redistribute sites of sitting pressure, Arch. Phys.
Med. Rehabil. 77 (3) (1996) 278–282.

13
D.W. Holmes et al.
[5] S.L. Sing, J. An, W.Y. Yeong, F.E. Wiria, Laser and electron-beam powder-bed
additive manufacturing of metallic implants: A review on processes, materials and
designs, J. Orthop. Res. 34 (3) (2016) 369–385.
[6] X. Wang, et al., Biomaterials topological design and additive manufacturing of
porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: a review, Biomaterials
83 (2016) 127–141.
[7] R.K. Chen, Y. Jin, J. Wensman, A. Shih, Additive manufacturing of custom orthoses
and prostheses—a review, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 77–89.
[8] S. Bose, D. Ke, H. Sahasrabudhe, A. Bandyopadhyay, Additive manufacturing of
biomaterials, Prog. Mater. Sci. 93 (2018) 45–111.
[9] Y. Yang, et al., Additive manufacturing of bone scaffolds, Int. J. Bioprint. 5 (1)
(2018) 1–25.
[10] P.S.P. Poh, D.W. Hutmacher, M.M. Stevens, M.A. Woodruff, Fabrication and in
vitro characterization of bioactive glass composite scaffolds for bone regeneration,
Biofabrication 5 (4) (2013), 045005.
[11] A. Bhargav, V. Sanjairaj, V. Rosa, L.W. Feng, J. Fuh YH, Applications of additive
manufacturing in dentistry: a review, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater.
106 (5) (2018) 2058–2064.
[12] R. Galante, C.G. Figueiredo-Pina, A.P. Serro, Additive manufacturing of ceramics
for dental applications: a review, Dent. Mater. 35 (6) (2019) 825–846.
[13] M. Revilla-León, M. Özcan, Additive manufacturing technologies used for
processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic
dentistry, J. Prosthodont. 28 (2) (2019) 146–158.
[14] M. Javaid, A. Haleem, Additive manufacturing applications in medical cases: a
literature based review, Alex. J. Med. 54 (4) (2018) 411–422.
[15] M. Ramola, V. Yadav, R. Jain, On the adoption of additive manufacturing in
healthcare: a literature review, J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 30 (1) (2019) 48–69.
[16] W. Tao ,M.C. Leu, Design of lattice structure for additive manufacturing, in:
Proceedings of the 2016 International Symposium on Flexible Automation (ISFA),
2016, 325–332.
[17] K. Bertoldi, V. Vitelli, J. Christensen, M. van Hecke, Flexible mechanical
metamaterials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2 (11) (2017) 17066.
[18] S.M. Montgomery, X. Kuang, C.D. Armstrong, H.J. Qi, Recent advances in additive
manufacturing of active mechanical metamaterials, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater.
Sci. 24 (5) (2020), 100869.
[19] A. Alomarah, S.H. Masood, I. Sbarski, B. Faisal, Z. Gao, D. Ruan, Compressive
properties of 3D printed auxetic structures: experimental and numerical studies,
Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 15 (1) (2020) 1–21.
[20] X. Zhu, et al., Additive manufacturing of elastomeric foam with cell unit design for
broadening compressive stress plateau, Rapid Prototyp. J. 24 (9) (2018)
1579–1585.
[21] D. Li, W. Liao, N. Dai, G. Dong, Y. Tang, Y.M. Xie, Optimal design and modeling of
gyroid-based functionally graded cellular structures for additive manufacturing,
Comput. Des. 104 (2018) 87–99.
[22] C. Pouya, et al., Characterization of a mechanically tunable gyroid photonic crystal
inspired by the butterfly parides sesostris, Adv. Opt. Mater. 4 (1) (2016) 99–105.
[23] Y. Jiang, Q. Wang, Highly-stretchable 3D-architected mechanical metamaterials,
Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 1–11.
[24] J. Martínez, H. Song, J. Dumas, S. Lefebvre, Orthotropic k -nearest foams for
additive manufacturing, ACM Trans. Graph. 36 (4) (2017) 1–12.
[25] F. Vanneste, O. Goury, J. Martinez, S. Lefebvre, H. Delingette, C. Duriez,
Anisotropic soft robots based on 3d printed meso-structured materials: design,
modeling by homogenization and simulation, IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 5 (2)
(2020) 2380–2386.
14
Additive Manufacturing 50 (2022) 102555
[26] V. Beloshenko, et al., Mechanical properties of flexible tpu-based 3d printed lattice
structures: role of lattice cut direction and architecture, Polymers 13 (17) (2021)
2986.
[27] Diabase Engineering, Flexion X60 Ultra-Flexible Filament Material Information,
2019. 〈https://flexionextruder.com/shop/x60-ultra-flexible-filament-black/〉.
[28] O. Al-Ketan, R.K. Abu Al-Rub,, Multifunctional mechanical metamaterials based on
triply periodic minimal surface lattices, Adv. Eng. Mater. 21 (10) (2019) 1900524.
[29] D.W. Abueidda, R.K. Abu Al-Rub, A.S. Dalaq, D.-W. Lee, K.A. Khan, I. Jasiuk,
Effective conductivities and elastic moduli of novel foams with triply periodic
minimal surfaces, Mech. Mater. 95 (2016) 102–115.
[30] D.W. Abueidda, M. Bakir, R.K. Abu Al-Rub, J.S. Bergström, N.A. Sobh, I. Jasiuk,
Mechanical properties of 3D printed polymeric cellular materials with triply
periodic minimal surface architectures, Mater. Des. 122 (2017) 255–267.
[31] J. Plocher, A. Panesar, Effect of density and unit cell size grading on the stiffness
and energy absorption of short fibre-reinforced functionally graded lattice
structures, Addit. Manuf. 33 (2020), 101171.
[32] D. Ali, S. Sen, 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 (2017) 262–270.
[33] O. Al-Ketan, D.W. Lee, R. Rowshan, R.K. Abu Al-Rub, Functionally graded and
multi-morphology sheet TPMS lattices: Design, manufacturing, and mechanical
properties, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 102 (2020), 103520.
[34] D. Li, W. Liao, N. Dai, Y.M. Xie, Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Energy
Absorption of Sheet-Based and Strut-Based Gyroid Cellular Structures with Graded
Densities, Materials 12 (13) (2019) 2183.
[35] T. Maconachie, et al., The compressive behaviour of ABS gyroid lattice structures
manufactured by fused deposition modelling, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 107
(11–12) (2020) 4449–4467.
[36] I. Maskery, N.T. Aboulkhair, A.O. Aremu, C.J. Tuck, I.A. Ashcroft, Compressive
failure modes and energy absorption in additively manufactured double gyroid
lattices, Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017) 24–29.
[37] Y. Wang, et al., Numerical and experimental studies on compressive behavior of
Gyroid lattice cylindrical shells, Mater. Des. 186 (2020), 108340.
[38] L. Yang, et al., Investigation on the orientation dependence of elastic response in
Gyroid cellular structures, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 90 (2019) 73–85.
[39] P. Cignoni, M. Callieri, M. Corsini, M. Dellepiane, F. Ganovelli, G. Ranzuglia,
MeshLab: An open-source mesh processing tool, in: Proceedings of the Sixth
Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference 2008, 129–136.
[40] NinjaTek, NinjaFlex® 3D Printing Filament: Flexible Polyurethane Material for
FDM Printers, 2016.
[41] D.W. Abueidda, M. Elhebeary, C.-S. (Andrew) Shiang, S. Pang, R.K. Abu Al-Rub, I.
M. Jasiuk, Mechanical properties of 3D printed polymeric Gyroid cellular
structures: experimental and finite element study, Mater. Des. 165 (2019), 107597.
[42] G. Paul, Y.J. Lee, P. Slattery, Modelling of multilayered foams for universal seat
design, Adv. Transdiscipl. Eng. 11 (2020) 237–248.
[43] S. Koumlis, L. Lamberson, Strain rate dependent compressive response of open cell
polyurethane foam, Exp. Mech. 59 (7) (2019) 1087–1103.
[44] E. Flam, E. Isayeva, Y. Kipervas, V. Shklyarevsky, L. Raab, Skin temperature and
moisture management with a low air loss surface, Ostomy/wound Manag., 41, 9,
2902.
[45] J. Kottner, J. Black, E. Call, A. Gefen, N. Santamaria, Microclimate: a critical
review in the context of pressure ulcer prevention, Clin. Biomech. 59 (2018)
62–70.