ArticleScientific reports2026
Topology-alloy interactions governing deformation and failure in LPBF-fabricated A286 and Inconel 718 lattice structures.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive multiscale comparison of LPBF-fabricated A286 and IN718 lattice structures across three architected topologies (BCC/BCCz, Gyroid/Hexstar and Honeycomb) to elucidate how alloy microstructure and geometry jointly control deformation and failure mechanisms. Quasi-static compression tests revealed a consistent topology-dependent strength hierarchy, with Honeycomb achieving the highest peak stresses (A286: 3.3 GPa; IN718: 2.89 GPa), followed by BCC/BCCz and Gyroid/Hexstar designs. A286 exhibited higher initial stiffness (9.3-11.2 GPa) but experienced early instability due to particle detachment and oxide-assisted cracking, whereas IN718 demonstrated smoother strain hardening and superior energy absorption, with W₆₀ values of 1.71-2.04 MJ/m³ compared to 1.32-1.85 MJ/m³ for A286. XRD analysis showed more compressive residual stresses in A286 (to - 585 MPa) than IN718 (to - 504 MPa), alongside higher microstrain (ε ≈ 5.6 × 10⁻³) and smaller crystallite size (27 nm vs. 43 nm), indicating greater lattice distortion in A286. FTIR spectra revealed stronger carbide- and oxide-related bands in A286, while IN718 displayed predominantly O-H and CO₂ signatures consistent with ductile surface formation. FESEM and EDS analyses confirmed fundamentally different failure pathways: A286 failed via particle pull-out, sinter-neck rupture and oxide-decorated cracking, whereas IN718 deformed through slip-dominated smearing, laminated tearing and blunted microcracks. Collectively, the results establish that topology governs global deformation, while alloy chemistry dictates whether collapse proceeds through brittle-assisted rupture (A286) or ductile, slip-mediated flow (IN718). This framework provides design guidelines for tailoring alloy-topology combinations for lightweight, impact-resistant applications.
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.