Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jan 27.
Published in final edited form as: Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2020 Mar 12;19(5):1865–1877. doi: 10.1007/s10237-020-01313-8

Table 2.

Comparison of six representative continuous and staged honeycomb configuration models

Model # θ twist Configuration Lfilter (mm) Asurface (mm2) ΔT (K) ΔP (Pa) ΔT/L (K/mm) ΔP/L (Pa/mm)
1 30° Continuous 20 5420 319 371 16.0 18.6
2 Staged (3 sections) 1.3 mm spacing 5.8 × 3 4710 304 337 17.5 19.4
3 Staged (2 sections) 5.8 mm spacing Flipped 5.8 × 2 3140 243 240 20.9 20.7
4 Staged (2 sections) 5.8 mm spacing 5.8 × 2 3140 237 227 20.5 19.5
5 45° Continuous 20 5570 352 425 17.6 21.3
6 staged (3 sections) 11.6 mm spacing 5.8 × 3 4840 334 391 19.2 22.5