4.4 Article

Characterization and modelling the mechanical behaviour of poly(l-lactic acid) for the manufacture of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds by stretch blow moulding

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12289-018-01463-2

关键词

Mechanical behaviour; Constitutive model; PLLA; Glass transition; Stretch blow moulding

资金

  1. European Union [691238]
  2. Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Italy)
  3. University of Warwick (UK)
  4. Queen's University Belfast (UK)
  5. California Institute of Technology (US)
  6. EPSRC [EP/M020851/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [691238] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) manufactured from poly (l-lactic acid) (PLLA) offer an alternative to metal scaffolds for the treatment of coronary heart disease. One of the key steps in the manufacture of these scaffolds is the stretch blow moulding process where the PLLA is biaxially stretched above glass transition temperature (T-g), inducing biaxial orientation and thus increasing ductility, strength and stiffness. To optimise the manufacture and performance of these scaffolds it is important to understand the influence of temperature and strain rate on the constitutive behaviour of PLLA in the blow moulding process. Experiments have been performed on samples of PLLA on a custom built biaxial stretch testing machine to replicate conditions typically experienced during blow moulding i.e. in a temperature range from 70 degrees C to 100 degrees C and at strain rates of 1 s(-1), 4 s(-1) and 16 s(-1) respectively. The data is subsequently used to calibrate a nonlinear viscoelastic material model to represent the deformation behaviour of PLLA in the blow moulding process. The results highlight the significance of temperature and strain rate on the yielding and strain hardening behaviour of PLLA and the ability of the selected model to capture it.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据