Experimental study demonstrates distinct mechanical trade-offs across five bio-inspired composite designs under three-point bending, indicating that overlap architectures achieve optimal overall...
Natural biological materials achieve synergistic strengthening and toughening through soft–stiff dual-phase architectures, inspiring artificial composites. Despite extensive studies on individual bio-inspired designs, systematic comparative investigations under fully unified experimental conditions remain limited. Here, five representative bio-inspired composite structures (brick–mud, cross-lamellar, interlock, overlap, and concentric) are fabricated via 3D printing and compared under quasi-static three-point bending. Key mechanical parameters—including flexural modulus, flexural strength, crack-initiation displacement, effective fracture displacement, total energy absorption, and post-peak energy dissipation ratio—are derived from force–displacement curves, complemented by high-resolution imaging of crack paths, crack front morphologies, and fracture surfaces. The concentric structure exhibits the highest flexural modulus and flexural strength, yet fails catastrophically with only a 9.95% post-peak energy dissipation ratio. The brick–mud and cross-lamellar structures achieve the highest post-peak energy dissipation ratios (27.69% and 27.42%, respectively), which may be attributed to crack deflection and interfacial debonding, yet at the cost of low flexural strength. The interlock structure, apparently lacking effective deflecting interfaces, shows straight-through propagation and brittle behavior. In contrast, the overlap structure appears to benefit from sustained crack deflection along inclined interfaces, thereby providing a balanced combination of high flexural strength, large deformability, and moderate energy absorption, demonstrating the best overall mechanical performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: