Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
Effect of Process Parameters and Geometry on the Quasi-Static and Dynamic Behavior of Additively Manufactured Lower-Extremity Metallic Lattice Bone Implants: A Design-of-Experiment Study
Additively manufactured metallic lattice biomaterials have revolutionized the mechanical properties of lower-extremity bone and joint implants. Most designers have followed a quasi-static approach, where material properties are solely represented by their elastic modulus. In reality, however, the human body experiences repeated dynamic and impact loads in vivo, and bone acts as a passive shock absorber and wave modulator. Most importantly, bone cells sense no load under quasi-static loading and must rather be subjected to impact loads at frequencies near their natural frequencies and high enough accelerations to conduct optimum mechanotransduction. This indicates the necessity of developing a dynamic design strategy that further considers damping and natural frequency. This research is an attempt to study the dynamic performance of selective laser melted lattice implants with the help of design of experiments and finite-element method (FEM). In many cases, lattice implants exhibit up to 80% similar values of elastic modulus and natural frequency to the bone. Regarding the damping, however, the similarity rarely reaches 10%. For the most part, the dynamic material properties of the implants are more significantly affected by their geometry and printability rather than process parameters. Damping decreases with power and increases with porosity and scanning speed. Natural frequency increases with power and remains almost constant with scanning speed. Generally, any change to the process parameters and geometry that improves the elastic modulus affects the natural frequency and damping directly and inversely, respectively. Capturing the main trends of dynamic behavior successfully, FEM accuracy is controlled by the geometry and hence can be distorted by manufacturing defects. All in all, there is a balance between the elastic modulus and damping. Dynamic performance improves with porosity, albeit up to an optimum point.
HarrisCM, PiersolAG. Harris’ Shock and Vibration Handbook. McGraw-Hill: New York; 2002.
2.
AshbyMF, CebonD. Materials selection in mechanical design. J Phys IV France, 1993; 03(C7):C7-1–C7-9.
3.
LakesRS. Viscoelastic Materials. Cambridge university press; 2009.
4.
YuG, LiZ, LiS, et al.The select of internal architecture for porous Ti alloy scaffold: A compromise between mechanical properties and permeability. Mater Des, 2020; 192:108754.
5.
JiangC-P, WibisonoAT, PasangT. Selective laser melting of stainless steel 316L with face-centered-cubic-based lattice structures to produce rib implants. Materials, 2021; 14(20):5962.
6.
MunfordMJ, XiaoD, JeffersJR. Lattice implants that generate homeostatic and remodeling strains in bone. J Orthop Res, 2022; 40(4):871–877.
7.
XuS, ZhangS, RenG, et al.Optimization of structural and processing parameters for selective laser melting of porous 316L bone scaffolds. Materials, 2022; 15(17):5896.
8.
ParkJ, LakesRS. Biomaterials: An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
9.
XiangL, GuY, RongM, et al.Shock acceleration and attenuation during running with minimalist and maximalist shoes: A time-and frequency-domain analysis of tibial acceleration. Bioengineering, 2022; 9(7):322.
10.
WardenSJ, EdwardsWB, WillyRW. Preventing bone stress injuries in runners with optimal workload. Curr Osteoporos Rep, 2021; 19(3):298–307.
11.
ThullR, HeinF. Advances in Artificial Hip and Knee Joint Technology: Volume 2: Advances in Artificial Hip and Knee Joint Technology. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
12.
HansenU, ZiouposP, SimpsonR, et al.The effect of strain rate on the mechanical properties of human cortical bone. 2008.
13.
PawelecK, PlanellJA. Bone repair biomaterials: Regeneration and clinical applications. 2018.
14.
ZimmermannEA, GludovatzB, SchaibleE, et al.Fracture resistance of human cortical bone across multiple length-scales at physiological strain rates. Biomaterials, 2014; 35(21):5472–5481.
15.
ProtM, CloeteTJ, SalettiD, et al.The behavior of cancellous bone from quasi-static to dynamic strain rates with emphasis on the intermediate regime. J Biomech, 2016; 49(7):1050–1057.
16.
GruberAH, BoyerKA, DerrickTR, et al.Impact shock frequency components and attenuation in rearfoot and forefoot running. J Sport Health Sci, 2014; 3(2):113–121.
17.
MercerJA, DevitaP, DerrickTR, et al.Individual effects of stride length and frequency on shock attenuation during running. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2003; 35(2):307–313.
18.
GarnerE, LakesR, LeeT, et al.Viscoelastic dissipation in compact bone: Implications for stress-induced fluid flow in bone. J Biomech Eng, 2000; 122(2):166–172.
19.
WeinbaumS, CowinSC, ZengY. A model for the excitation of osteocytes by mechanical loading-induced bone fluid shear stresses. J Biomech, 1994; 27(3):339–360.
20.
ShikataT, ShiraishiT, MorishitaS, et al.Effects of amplitude and frequency of mechanical vibration stimulation on cultured osteoblasts. JSDD, 2008; 2(1):382–388.
21.
TurnerCH, ForwoodMR, OtterMW. Mechanotransduction in bone: Do bone cells act as sensors of fluid flow? Faseb J, 1994; 8(11):875–878.
22.
TurnerCH, OwanI, TakanoY. Mechanotransduction in bone: Role of strain rate. Am J Physiol, 1995; 269(3 Pt 1):E438–E442.
23.
WuX-T, SunL-W, QiH-Y, et al.The bio‐response of osteocytes and its regulation on osteoblasts under vibration. Cell Biol Int, 2016; 40(4):397–406.
24.
UniyalP, SihotaP, KumarN. Effect of organic matrix alteration on strain rate dependent mechanical behaviour of cortical bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2022; 125:104910.
25.
LanyonLE, RubinCT. Static vs dynamic loads as an influence on bone remodelling. J Biomech, 1984; 17(12):897–905.
26.
AielloBR, Iriarte-DiazJ, BlobRW, et al.Bone strain magnitude is correlated with bone strain rate in tetrapods: Implications for models of mechanotransduction. Proc R Soc B, 2015; 282(1810):20150321.
27.
RadinEL, ParkerHG, PughJW, et al.Response of joints to impact loading—III: Relationship between trabecular microfractures and cartilage degeneration. J Biomech, 1973; 6(1):51–57.
28.
WangL, XianCJ. Dynamic analyses of osteoblast vibrational responses: A finite element viscoelastic model. 2016.
29.
AshbyMF, EvansT, FleckNA, et al.Metal Foams: A Design Guide. Elsevier; 2000.
30.
MelanconD, BagheriZS, JohnstonRB, et al.Mechanical characterization of structurally porous biomaterials built via additive manufacturing: Experiments, predictive models, and design maps for load-bearing bone replacement implants. Acta Biomater, 2017; 63:350–368.
31.
Martinez-MarquezD, DelmarY, SunS, et al.Exploring macroporosity of additively manufactured titanium metamaterials for bone regeneration with quality by design: A systematic literature review. Materials, 2020; 13(21):4794.
32.
DiegelO, NordinA, MotteD. A Practical Guide to Design for Additive Manufacturing. Springer; 2020.
33.
VránaR, KouteckýT, ČervinekO, et al.Deviations of the SLM produced lattice structures and their influence on mechanical properties. Materials, 2022; 15(9):3144.
34.
López-GarcíaC, García-LópezE, SillerHR, et al.A dimensional assessment of small features and lattice structures manufactured by laser powder bed fusion. Prog Addit Manuf, 2022; 7(4):751–763.
35.
OssolaE, ShapiroAA, PateA, et al.Fabrication defects and limitations of AlSi10Mg lattice structures manufactured by selective laser melting. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part J Mater Des Appl, 2021; 235(9):2071–2082.
36.
ZhangS, VijayavenkataramanS, LuWF, et al.A review on the use of computational methods to characterize, design, and optimize tissue engineering scaffolds, with a potential in 3D printing fabrication. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2019; 107(5):1329–1351.
37.
MaeharaK, DoiK, MatsushitaT, et al.Application of vanadium-free titanium alloys to artificial hip joints. Mater Trans, 2002; 43(12):2936–2942.
38.
ØdegaardKS, TorgersenJ, ElverumCW. Structural and biomedical properties of common additively manufactured biomaterials: A concise review. Metals, 2020; 10(12):1677.
39.
LowtherM, LouthS, DaveyA, et al.Clinical, industrial, and research perspectives on powder bed fusion additively manufactured metal implants. Addit Manuf, 2019; 28:565–584.
40.
CurreyJD, ButlerG. The mechanical properties of bone tissue in children. Jbjs, 1975; 57(6):810–814.
41.
MotoshimaT. Studies on the strength for bending of human long extremity bones. J Kyoto Pref Med Univ, 1960; 68:1377–1397.
42.
ManganyiUN, MpofuK. Biological considerations in the structural design of smart prosthetics. 2011; p. 25.
43.
ReillyDT, BursteinAH. The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomech, 1975; 8(6):393–405.
44.
BargrenJH, AndrewC, BassettL, et al.Mechanical properties of hydrated cortical bone. J Biomech, 1974; 7(3):239–245.
45.
ÖhmanC, BaleaniM, PaniC, et al.Compressive behaviour of child and adult cortical bone. Bone, 2011; 49(4):769–776.
46.
TanakaM, AdachiT. Model and simulation of bone remodeling considering residual stress. Comput Biomech, 1996:3–21.
47.
ParkJB, LakesRS. Structure–property relationships of biological materials. Biomaterials, 2007:225–263.
48.
KimJH. Decision-theoretic hypothesis testing: A primer with R package OptSig. Am Stat, 2020; 74(4):370–379.
49.
JankovicA, ChaudharyG, GoiaF. Designing the Design of Experiments (DOE)–An investigation on the influence of different factorial designs on the characterization of complex systems. Energy Build, 2021; 250:111298.
50.
ScalzoF, TotisG, VaglioE, et al.Experimental study on the high-damping properties of metallic lattice structures obtained from SLM. Precis Eng, 2021; 71:63–77.
51.
ZhengL, ZhangQ, CaoH, et al.Melt pool boundary extraction and its width prediction from infrared images in selective laser melting. Mater Des, 2019; 183:108110.
52.
YakoutM, ElbestawiMA, VeldhuisSC. Density and mechanical properties in selective laser melting of Invar 36 and stainless steel 316L. J Mater Process Technol, 2019; 266:397–420.
53.
FiocchiJ, BiffiCA, ScaccabarozziD, et al.Enhancement of the damping behavior of Ti6Al4V alloy through the use of trabecular structure produced by selective laser melting. Adv Eng Mater, 2020; 22(2):1900722.
54.
RosaF, ManzoniS, CasatiR. Damping behavior of 316L lattice structures produced by selective laser melting. Mater Des, 2018; 160:1010–1018.
55.
RivinEI. Handbook on Stiffness & Damping in Mechanical Design. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2010.
56.
VisnapuuA, NashRW, TurnerPC. Damping properties of selected steels and cast irons. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines; 1987.
57.
BlanterMS, GolovinIS, NeuhauserH, et al.Internal Friction in Metallic Materials. Springer; 2007.
58.
ZhangJ, PerezRJ, LaverniaEJ. Documentation of damping capacity of metallic, ceramic and metal-matrix composite materials. J Mater Sci, 1993; 28(9):2395–2404.
59.
PoddaevaO, FedosovaA. Damping capacity of materials and its effect on the dynamic behavior of structures. Review. Energy Rep, 2021; 7:299–307.
