ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Uncertainty Quantification of the Mechanical Properties of 2D Hexagonal Cellular Solid by Analytical and Finite Element Method Approach.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The mechanical properties of cellular materials are critical to their performance and must be accurately determined through both analytical and numerical methods. These approaches are essential not only for understanding material behavior but also for evaluating the effects of parametric variations within the unit cell structure. This study focuses on the in-plane comparison of analytical and numerical evaluations of key mechanical properties, including Young's modulus, yield strength, and Poisson's ratio of a 2D hexagonal unit cell subjected to systematic geometric and material variations. Analytically, the mechanical properties were derived based on the geometric configuration of the hexagonal unit cell. Numerically, the finite element method (FEM) simulations employed three different meshing methods: quadrilateral, quad-dominated, and triangular elements, to ensure precision and consistency in the results. The elastic response (Young's modulus) was examined through a parametric sweep involving segmental length variations (4.41 to 4.71 mm) and material modulus (66.5 to 71.5 GPa), revealing percentage differences between analytical and numerical results ranging from -8.28% to 10.87% and -10.58% to 11.95%, respectively. Similarly, yield strength was evaluated with respect to variations in segmental length (4.41 to 4.71 mm) and wall thickness (1.08 to 1.11 mm), showing discrepancies between -2.86% to -5.53% for segmental length and 7.76% to 10.57% for thickness. For Poisson's ratio, variations in the same parameters led to differences ranging from -7.05% to -12.48% and -9.11% to -12.64%, respectively. Additionally, uncertainty was assessed through relative entropy measures-Bhattacharyya, Kullback-Leibler, Hellinger, and Jeffreys-to evaluate the sensitivity of homogenized properties to input variability. These entropy measures quantify the probabilistic distance between core material distributions and their effective counterparts, reinforcing the importance of precise modeling in the design and optimization of cellular structures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.