Interlayer fracture energy of 3D-printed PLA material

  • Hadi NooriEmail author


The application of 3D printing in additive manufacturing processes is expanding due to its versatility and the progress in the process control. In conjunction with its fast-growing applications, the performance and properties of the material after 3D printing need thorough assessments for critical designs in medical, aerospace, and automotive industries. Although increasing the deposition height in 3D printing decreases the time of manufacturing, the properties of the products must satisfy design specifications for the product strength and surface condition. The objective of the current study is to explore the effect of deposition height on tensile fracture energy of the layered structure of a biodegradable and bioactive thermoplastic polymer, known as polylactide (PLA). The results obtained from uniaxial tensile loading experiments show that the energy required for interlayer fracture is dependent on the deposition height. Based on the experimental results, it is evident that two factors conversely affect the fracture energy: tensile residual stress and the interlayer contact area. Also, the results show that the surface roughness has no significant influence on fracture energy.


3D printing Deposition height Interlayer fracture energy Tensile residual stress Interlayer contact area 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


Funding information

The author is thankful for the financial support for this work by the College of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology at Oklahoma State University.


  1. 1.
    Huang SH, Liu P, Mokasdar A, Hou L (2013) Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67:1191–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson MK, Moroni G, Vaneker T, Fadel G, Campbell RI, Gibson I, Bernard A, Schulz J, Graf P, Ahuja B, Martina F (2016) Design for additive manufacturing: trends, opportunities, considerations, and constraints. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 65:737–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang X, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Gou J, Hui D (2017) 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: a review and prospective. Compos Part B 110:442–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bikas H, Stavropoulos P, Chryssolouris G (2016) Additive manufacturing methods and modelling approaches: a critical review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83:389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uriondo A, Esperon-Miguez M, Perinpanayagam S (2015) The present and future of additive manufacturing in the aerospace sector: a review of important aspects. Proc Inst Mech Eng, G J Aerosp Eng 229(11):2132–2147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deckers J, Vleugels J, Kruth J-P (2014) Additive manufacturing of ceramics: a review. J Ceram Sci Technol 05(04):245–260Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Attaran M (2017) The rise of 3-D printing: the advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Business Horizons 60:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Achillas C, Tzetzis D, Raimondo MO (2017) Alternative production strategies based on the comparison of additive and traditional manufacturing technologies. Int J Prod Res 55(12):3497–3509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cuiffo MA, Snyder J, Elliott AM, Romero N, Kannan S, Halada GP (2017) Impact of the fused deposition (FDM) printing process on polylactic acid (PLA) chemistry and structure. Appl Sci 7(6):579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Song Y, Li Y, Song W, Yee K, Lee K-Y, Tagarielli VL (2017) Measurements of the mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed PLA. Mater Des 123:154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chacón JM, Caminero MA, García-Plaza E, Núñez PJ (2017) Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection. Mater Des 124:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drummer D, Cifuentes-Cuellar S, Rietzel D (2012) Suitability of PLA/TCP for fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp J 18(6):500–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coogan TJ, Kazmer DO (2017) Bond and part strength in fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp J 23(2):414–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abbott AC, Tandon GP, Bradford RL, Koerner H, Baur JW (2018) Process-structure-property effects on ABS bond strength in fused filament fabrication. Addit Manuf 19:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D’Amico AA, Debaie A, Peterson AM (2017) Effect of layer thickness on irreversible thermal expansion and interlayer strength in fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp J 23(5):943–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pilkey WD, Pilkey DF (2008) Peterson’s stress concentration factors, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, p 84Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farah S, Anderson DG, Langer R (2016) Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications — a comprehensive review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:367–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carrasco F, Pagès P, Gámez-Pérez J, Santana OO, Maspoch ML (2010) Processing of poly (lactic acid): characterization of chemical structure, thermal stability and mechanical properties. Polym Degrad Stab 95:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lightweighting Research Center, School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations