Fig. 4: Piezoelectric performance of cellular ceramic metamaterials.
From: A bioinspired surface tension-driven route toward programmed cellular ceramics
a Comparison of the d33 constant between the STATS manufactured piezoceramics including solid piezoceramic plates and cellular piezoceramics with high porosity and the previously reported architected piezoelectric composites and ceramics37,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54. b The effective g33 constant and fracture strength of the prepared cellular piezoceramics with an average relative density of 0.13, 0.21, 0.27 and 0.34. c The output voltages of the cellular piezoceramics with a relative density of 0.13 under increasing periodical compressive pressure. The load frequency is 40 Hz. Error bars are standard deviation and include 6 independent measurements for each pressure. Insets show the current direction during the compression and the typical voltage signals during 7.5 ms under the pressure of 60 kPa. d Comparison of the g33 constant between the STATS manufactured cellular piezoceramics and the previously reported piezoelectric materials with various relative densities56,57,58,59. e Comparison of the proposed STATS manufacturing process with the conventional direct 3D printing process, i.e., stereolithography (SLA) or digital light processing (DLP), direct ink writing (DIW), and selective laser sintering (SLS), on engineering architected piezoceramics in terms of ceramic compactness, geometry complexity, processing precision, processing speed, total cost, and piezoelectricity. f Optical images of the architected piezoceramic metamaterials with different 3D configurations and their corresponding output voltage signals under periodical compressive pressure from the three principal directions. Scale bar, 5 mm.
