Of 0.04 s-1. Figure six shows working with a universal uniaxial compression tester having a strain rate of 0.04 s-1 . Figure 6 shows the experimental setup for the compression testing. The force PHA-543613 Formula response during compresthe experimental setup for the compression testing. The force response in the course of compression sion was captured using a force sensor as a function on the displacement of the hydraulic was captured with a force sensor as a function of the displacement of your hydraulic pressing pressing punch, which was measured with a linear potentiometer. The measurements punch, which was measured using a linear potentiometer. The measurements have been captured were captured by indicates of a information acquisition technique, and also the experiment was repeated by means of a data acquisition technique, and also the experiment was repeated 3 occasions for three times for every single auxetic sample kind to ensure the repeatability of your recorded measeach auxetic sample kind to ensure the repeatability of the recorded measurements. urements.Figure 6. Experimental setup for compression testing of auxetic samples. Figure six. Experimental setup for compression testing of auxetic samples.four.2. Experimental Final results Figure 7 illustrates the force-displacement measurements for PLA, PET, TPU components made by FDM and PA12 material by signifies of PBF. All four components showed strongAppl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW9 ofAppl. Sci. 2021, 11,4.2. Experimental Results9 ofFigure 7 illustrates the force-displacement measurements for PLA, PET, TPU materials made by FDM and PA12 material by suggests of PBF. All four materials showed robust reproducibility. The Duraform Flex rubber 3D sample produced by SLS demonstrated only reproducibility. The Duraform Flex rubber 3D sample produced by SLS demonstrated only minor force response (significantly less than 22N) on account of incredibly low overall stiffness. Since the measuring response (much less than N) on account of incredibly low overall stiffness. Because the measuring accuracy in the readily available force sensor was unable to capture forces of that range, the results the out there force sensor was unable to capture forces of that range, the refor this material are omitted. sults for this material are omitted.600 PLA1 500Force, F [N]Force, F [N]350 PET1 300 250 200 150 one hundred 50 0 PET2 PETPLA2 PLA300 200 100 0 0 10 20 Displacement, [mm] 3020 30 Displacement, [mm]80 TPU1 70 60 TPU2 TPUForce, F [N]45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 PA12_1 PA12_2 PA12_Force, F [N]50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 Displacement, [mm]20 30 Displacement, [mm]Figure 7. Experimental measurements of force vs. displacements on auxetic samples. Figure 7. Experimental measurements of force vs. displacements on auxetic samples.The experimental study for the 2D auxetic geometries has shown that PLA samples The experimental study for the 2D auxetic geometries has shown that PLA samples provide the highest Methyl jasmonate manufacturer stiffness and force response, due toto their higher elastic modulus, comprovide the highest stiffness and force response, due their high elastic modulus, in comparison with the other materials tested in within this experiment. The experiments showed that pared to the other materials tested this experiment. The experiments showed that bebetween 15 mm andmmmm of travelled compression distance of punch, the FDM 2D tween 15 mm and 20 20 of travelled compression distance of punch, the FDM 2D samsamples (PLA, PET, and TPU) created an increase ingradient. This This elevated stiffness ples (PLA, PET, and TPU) made an increase inside the the gradient. elevated stiffness in in samples was.