Corals, crucial for ocean ecosystems, face threats such as ocean acidification from global warming and pollution, which weaken their skeletons. This study focuses on Acropora cervicornis, known for its hard but fragile structure, requiring strength and flexibility to withstand the forces from climate-driven atmospheric events. An experiment using uniaxial mechanical loading from the initial stage to complete failure at a very low strain rate (1.2821 × 10−5 s−1) was conducted to ascertain the mechanical properties of corals. The geometric properties and Young's modulus were analysed based on various levels of micro-architectural details from micro-CT data, with resolution values influencing the measurements. The highest resolution model showed a Young's modulus approaching 22.265 GPa and porosity at 40.448%. Calibration of finite element models incorporating micro-architectural details enabled a precise comparison of parameter effects and more accurate results, highlighting the significance of resolution in modelling coral mechanical properties.
MoynihanMAAminiSGoodkinNF, et al.Environmental impact on the mechanical properties of Porites spp. corals. Coral Reefs2021; 40: 701–717.
2.
MwachireyaSAMcClanahanTRCoteIM,et al.Increased terrestrial perturbations modify skeletal properties and mechanical strength of hard corals. Environ Nat Resour2016; 6: 153.
3.
Norzagaray-LópezOCCalderon-AguileraLECastro-CeseñaAB, et al.Skeletal dissolution kinetics and mechanical tests in response to morphology among coral genera. Facies2017; 63: 7.
4.
TambuttéEVennAAHolcombM, et al.Morphological plasticity of the coral skeleton under CO2-driven seawater acidification. Nat Commun2015; 6: 7368.
5.
BaldockTEKarampourHSleepR, et al.Resilience of branching and massive corals to wave loading under sea level rise – a coupled computational fluid dynamics-structural analysis. Marine Pollut Bull2014; 86: 91–101.
6.
Carrasco-PenaAOmerMMasaB, et al.Mechanical properties, spectral vibrational response, and flow-field analysis of the aragonite skeleton of the staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis). Coral Reefs2020; 39: 1779–1792.
7.
MadinJS. Mechanical limitations of reef corals during hydrodynamic disturbances. Coral Reefs2005; 24: 630–635.
8.
RodgersKCoxENewtsonC. Effects of mechanical fracturing and experimental trampling on Hawaiian corals. Environ Manage2003; 31: 377–384.
9.
TunnicliffeV. Breakage and propagation of the stony coral Acropora cervicornis. Proc Natl Acad Sci1981; 78: 2427–2431.
10.
ChenFChenSTaoK, et al.Marrow-derived osteoblasts seeded into porous natural coral to prefabricate a vascularised bone graft in the shape of a human mandibular ramus: experimental study in rabbits. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg2004; 42: 532–537.
11.
CuiLLiuBLiuG, et al.Repair of cranial bone defects with adipose derived stem cells and coral scaffold in a canine model. Biomaterials2007; 28: 5477–5486.
12.
GreenDWBen NissanBYoonKS, et al.Natural and synthetic coral biomineralization for human bone revitalization. Trends Biotechnol2017; 35: 43–54.
13.
GuilleminGPatatJ-LFournieJ,et al.The use of coral as a bone graft substitute. J Biomed Mater1987; 21: 557–567.
14.
HamzaSSlimaneNAzariZ,et al.Structural and mechanical properties of the coral and nacre and the potentiality of their use as bone substitutes. Appl Surf Sci2012; 264: 485–491.
15.
KnackstedtMArnsCSendenT,et al.Structure and properties of clinical coralline implants measured via 3D imaging and analysis. Biomaterials2006; 27: 2776–2786.
16.
MatudaYOkamuraTTabataH, et al.Periodontal regeneration using cultured coral scaffolds in class ii furcation defects in dogs. J Hard Tissue Biol2019; 28: 329–334.
17.
NishikawaTOkamuraTOnotT, et al.Bone augmentation experiment using coral on the skull of rat. Nano Biomed2013; 5: 109–113.
18.
NishikawaTOkamuraTMasunoK, et al.Comparative study of physical and morphological characteristics of cultured and natural coral as a bone augmentation scaffold. J Oral Tissue Eng2016; 14: 107–113.
19.
NishikawaTKokubuMKatoH, et al.Confocal laser scanning microscopy in study of bone calcification. Appl Surf Sci2012; 262: 64–68.
20.
WuYCLeeTMChiuKH, et al.A comparative study of the physical and mechanical properties of three natural corals based on the criteria for bone–tissue engineering scaffolds. J Mater Sci Mater Med2009; 20: 1273–1280.
21.
HarriottVJRobertsLG. Skeletal micro-density, porosity and bulk density of acroporid corals. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol1998; 228: 117–136.
22.
ChamberlainJA. Mechanical properties of coral skeleton: compressive strength and its adaptive significance. Paleobiology1978; 4: 419–435.
23.
VosburghF. Acropora reticulata: structure, mechanics and ecology of a reef coral. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci1982; 214: 481–499.
24.
AltıntaşG. Modeling and mechanical analysis considerations of structures based on micro-CT. In: Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) in medicine and engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 247–266.
25.
UcarEMobediMAltintasG,et al.Effect of voxel size in flow direction on permeability and Forchheimer coefficients determined by using micro-tomography images of a porous medium. Prog Comput Fluid Dyn Int J2015; 15: 27.
26.
WallaceC. Staghorn corals of the world: a revision of the genus Acropora; books google com, 1999.
27.
MaLWuJWangM, et al.Dynamic compressive properties of dry and saturated coral rocks at high strain rates. Eng Geol2020; 272: 105615.
28.
WeiHMaLWuJ, et al.Dynamic mechanical behavior of coral rock subjected to high strain rate loading. Mar Geophys Res2022; 43: 30.
29.
WuZZhangJYuH, et al.Coupling effect of strain rate and specimen size on the compressive properties of coral aggregate concrete: a 3D mesoscopic study. Compos B Eng2020; 200: 108299.
