Iven in Table 3. Having said that, the coefficient = 0.25, 0.12, six.11 and = 0.92, 0.79,five.34 are given for FPT, and FPV, respectively. Despite the fact that the FPV FPV the reduced side of Figure for FPMA, FPMA, FPT, and FPV, respectively. Despite the fact that the is on is on the decrease side of 10a, Figure 10a, FPMA and moduli comparable to TPMS-based lattices lattices close the FPT as well as the FPT haveFPMA have moduli comparable to TPMS-based and areand areto truss close to truss the relative the relative yield strength, the novel lattices surpass the presented lattices. As forlattices. As foryield strength, the novel lattices surpass the majority of many of the presented lattices from except for the sheet TPMS-based lattices. lattices in the literature,the literature, except for the sheet TPMS-based lattices.10-1.50-Relative Young’s Modulus50-5 5FPMA FPT FPV Gyroid-sheet [43] Diamond-sheet [43] Octet-truss [43] FCC [44] Gyroid-solid [43] Diamond-solid [43]Relative Yield Strength5010-3 5FPMA FPV FPT Gyroid-sheet [43] Diamond-sheet [43] Octet-truss [43] FCC [44] Gyroid-solid [43] Diamond-solid [43]50Actual Relative Density(a)Actual Relative Density(b)Figure (a) Relative modulus vs. relative density, (b) relative yield strength vs. relative density. Figure ten.10. (a) Relative modulus vs. relative density, (b) relative yield strength vs. relative density.The precise energy absorption (SEA) vs.vs. strain is plotted in Figure 11, and it was The specific energy absorption (SEA) strain is plotted in Figure 11, and it was located by dividing the area under the strain train curve by the lattice’s density found by dividing the Tomatine Protocol region under the stress train curve by the lattice’s density (), as( ), as shown inside the equation beneath, where ( ) the densification strain [58]. shown within the equation under, exactly where ( )d isis the densification strain [58].Polymers 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW= SEA =5.six.0 9.61 16.four 20.five()d d 0 ()d15 of(four)(4)1.8 1.six 1.four.5 4.0 three.SEA (J/g)SEA (J/g)1.2 1.0 0.8 0.six 0.four 0.two 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.two 0.3 0.four 0.five 0.six 0.five.eight 10.two 14.5 20.03.0 2.five two.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.Strain (mm/mm)Strain (mm/mm)(a)2.4 2.2 2.0 1.eight 1.6 1.four 1.two 1.0 0.eight 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.(b)SEA (J/g)5.41 9.9 15.two 20.ten.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.Strain (mm/mm)(c)Figure 11. Distinct energy absorption strain, (a) flat-plate modified auxetic, flat-plate tesseract, (c) flat plate vintile. Figure 11. Specific energy absorption vs.vs. strain, (a)flat-plate modified auxetic, (b)(b) flat-plate tesseract, (c) flat plate vintile.The FPT can attain a remarkable SEA of 4.50 J/g at a strain of 0.7, the FPV reaches a SEA of 2.20 J/g at a strain of 0.75, along with the MA reaches an SEA of 1.70 J/g at a strain of 0.58. However, it’s worth noting that the FPT at 20 relative density sees a decrease in its SEA resulting from the early onset of densification. It really is exciting to note that the effects of cell architecture develop into less pronounced with a rise in relative density, as evident by FigurePolymers 2021, 13,15 ofThe FPT can reach a remarkable SEA of 4.50 J/g at a strain of 0.7, the FPV reaches a SEA of two.20 J/g at a strain of 0.75, and the MA reaches an SEA of 1.70 J/g at a strain of 0.58. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the FPT at 20 relative density sees a reduce in its SEA as a ARQ 531 Cancer result of the early onset of densification. It is actually fascinating to note that the effects of cell architecture develop into much less pronounced with a rise in relative density, as evident by Figure eight, where the fits often converge to a single point. On the other hand, that does.