Fig. 5
Mechanical characterization of cylindrical materials. a Two similar cylinders were produced via 3D printing with rectangular window geometry (rectangular; Rect) or parallelogram window geometry (anisotropic; Aniso). b Still images of the rectangular and anisotropic cylinders during longitudinal compression. Rectangular devices buckled and failed at low strain while anisotropic devices compressed up to ~30% strain without failure with or without a hydrogel coating (image shown with coating). c Stress–strain curves under longitudinal compression for uncoated (dashed lines) and coated (solid lines) rectangular (blue) and anisotropic (red) scaffolds. d Effective compressive moduli under longitudinal compression for uncoated (patterned bars) and coated (solid bars) rectangular (blue) and anisotropic (red) scaffolds. e Stress–strain curves under radial compression for uncoated (dashed lines) and coated (solid lines) rectangular (blue) and anisotropic (red) scaffolds. f Effective compressive moduli under radial compression for uncoated (patterned bars) and coated (solid bars) rectangular (blue) and anisotropic (red) scaffolds. The plots show a single representative stress–strain curve for each scaffold type. Compressive moduli values are displayed as mean + s.d. (n = 5 for uncoated scaffolds and n = 3 for coated scaffolds)
