Advertisement

Progress in Additive Manufacturing

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 23–41 | Cite as

Investigation of polylactide and carbon nanocomposite filament for 3D printing

  • Akshay Potnuru
  • Yonas TadesseEmail author
Full Research Article

Abstract

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) has been used to manufacture complicated structures and robots in the past few years. However, most FDM machines do not fabricate fully functional robots that are ready for use. One of the requirements of fully functional 3D printed robots is electrical connection in some part of the printed structure. Recently, electrically conductive commercial filaments are emerging to the market, but the actual chemical compositions of the filler and host materials as well as mechanical properties are not available. This paper presents composite materials consisting of conductive carbon nanoparticles, thermoplastics, and solvents to create thin filaments for 3D printing. The mechanical and electrical properties of the filaments fabricated using a composition of 0–15% weight of carbon nanoparticles (NC) in polylactide (PLA) and dichloromethane (DCM) solvent were investigated. The DCM is used for dissolving the PLA and dispersion of the NC, which is subsequently evaporated by drying. The electrical conductivity of the composite filament is compared with commercial and academia counterparts. Possible applications of the composite materials for fabrication of electrical circuitry for 3D printed robots were also discussed.

Keywords

Conductivity 3D printing Additive manufacturing Robots PLA Carbon nanoparticles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Part of this work is supported by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), Young Investigator Program, under the Grant Number N00014-15-1-2503.

Supplementary material

40964_2018_57_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19114 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (AVI 7587 KB)

Supplementary material 3 (AVI 10120 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Bak D (2003) Rapid prototyping or rapid production? 3D printing processes move the industry towards the latter. Assemb Autom 23(4):340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu L, Larkin M, Potnuru A, Tadesse Y (2016) HBS-1: a modular child-size 3D printed humanoid. Robotics 5(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Potnuru A, Jafarzadeh M, Tadesse Y (2016) 3D printed dancing humanoid robot “Buddy” for homecare. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on automation science and engineering (CASE). IEEE, pp 733–738Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arjun A, Saharan L, Tadesse Y (2016) Design of a 3D printed hand prosthesis actuated by nylon 6–6 polymer based artificial muscles. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on automation science and engineering (CASE). IEEE, pp 910–915Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saharan L, Tadesse Y (2016) Robotic hand with locking mechanism using TCP muscles for applications in prosthetic hand and humanoids. SPIE smart structures and materials + nondestructive evaluation and health monitoring, 2016. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 97970V–97979Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saharan L, Sharma A, de Andrade MJ, Baughman RH, Tadesse Y (2017) Design of a 3D printed lightweight orthotic device based on twisted and coiled polymer muscle: iGrab hand orthosis. SPIE smart structures and materials + nondestructive evaluation and health monitoring. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 1016428–1016410Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tadesse Y, Wu L, Saharan LK (2016) Musculoskeletal system for bio-inspired robotic systems. Mech Eng 138(3):S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ladd C, So JH, Muth J, Dickey MD (2013) 3D printing of free standing liquid metal microstructures. Adv Mater 25(36):5081–5085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khaing M, Fuh J, Lu L (2001) Direct metal laser sintering for rapid tooling: processing and characterisation of EOS parts. J Mater Process Technol 113(1):269–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosochowski A, Matuszak A (2000) Rapid tooling: the state of the art. J Mater Process Technol 106(1):191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Park BK, Kim D, Jeong S, Moon J, Kim JS (2007) Direct writing of copper conductive patterns by ink-jet printing. Thin Solid Films 515(19):7706–7711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Osch TH, Perelaer J, de Laat AW, Schubert US (2008) Inkjet printing of narrow conductive tracks on untreated polymeric substrates. Adv Mater 20(2):343–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamyshny A, Steinke J, Magdassi S (2011) Metal-based inkjet inks for printed electronics. Open Appl Phys J 4:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bikas H, Stavropoulos P, Chryssolouris G (2016) Additive manufacturing methods and modelling approaches: a critical review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(1–4):389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Irfan M (2012) Chemistry and technology of thermosetting polymers in construction applications. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walters P, Huson D, Parraman C, Stanić M (2009) 3D printing in colour: technical evaluation and creative applications. In: Impact 6 international printmaking conferenceGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rengier F, Mehndiratta A, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Zechmann CM, Unterhinninghofen R, Kauczor H-U, Giesel FL (2010) 3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 5(4):335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krzyzanowski M, Svyetlichnyy D, Stevenson G, Rainforth WM (2016) Powder bed generation in integrated modelling of additive layer manufacturing of orthopaedic implants. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 87:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horvath J (2014) A brief history of 3D printing Mastering 3D printing. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hwang S, Reyes EI, Moon K-S, Rumpf RC, Kim NS (2015) Thermo-mechanical characterization of metal/polymer composite filaments and printing parameter study for fused deposition modeling in the 3D printing process. J Electron Mater 44(3):771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Love LJ, Kunc V, Rios O, Duty CE, Elliott AM, Post BK, Smith RJ, Blue CA (2014) The importance of carbon fiber to polymer additive manufacturing. J Mater Res 29(17):1893–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sa’ude N, Ibrahim M, Ibrahim MHI (2013) Mechanical properties of highly filled iron-ABS composites in injection molding for FDM wire filament. In: Materials Science Forum, 2013. Trans Tech Publications, Zurich, pp 448–453Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsiakatouras G, Tsellou E, Stergiou C (2014) Comparative study on nanotubes reinforced with carbon filaments for the 3D printing of mechanical parts. Trans Eng Technol Edu 12(3):392–396Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang D, Chi B, Li B, Gao Z, Du Y, Guo J, Wei J (2016) Fabrication of highly conductive graphene flexible circuits by 3D printing. Synth Met 217:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nicholson JC (2015) Nanoenhanced additive manufacturing: additive introduction onto halloysite nanotubes and into 3D printing filament for tailored material characteristics. Louisiana Tech University, RustonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wei X, Li D, Jiang W, Gu Z, Wang X, Zhang Z, Sun Z (2015) 3D printable graphene composite. Sci Rep 5:1118Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Graphene 3D Lab Inc. (2016) Conductive graphene filament. http://www.graphene3dlab.com/s/filament.asp. Accessed 30 Sept 2016
  28. 28.
    Leigh SJ, Bradley RJ, Purssell CP, Billson DR, Hutchins DA (2012) A simple, low-cost conductive composite material for 3D printing of electronic sensors. PLoS ONE 7(11):e49365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Devaux E, Aubry C, Campagne C, Rochery M (2011) PLA/carbon nanotubes multifilament yarns for relative humidity textile sensor. J Eng Fiber Fabr 6:13–15Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oliveira JE, Mattoso LHC, Medeiros ES, Zucolotto V (2012) Poly(lactic acid)/carbon nanotube fibers as novel platforms for glucose biosensors. Biosensors 2(1):70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vincent-Hughes IT, Kambiz C, Daniel T (2016) 3D printable conductive nanocomposites of PLA and multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Mater Matters 11:2Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guo S-z, Yang X, Heuzey M-C, Therriault D (2015) 3D printing of a multifunctional nanocomposite helical liquid sensor. Nanoscale 7(15):6451–6456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Novakova-Marcincinova L, Kuric I (2012) Basic and advanced materials for fused deposition modeling rapid prototyping technology. Manuf Ind Eng 11(1):24–27Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Proto-pasta Conductive PLA. https://www.proto-pasta.com/pages/conductive-pla. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    3DXNANO™ ESD CNT-PETG carbon nanotube reinforced polyethylene terephthalate glycol copolymer 3D printing filament. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/3dxcnt003?lang=en&region=US&cm_sp=Insite-_-recent_fixed-_-recent5-2. Accessed 23 Aug 2017
  38. 38.
    Espalin D, Muse DW, MacDonald E, Wicker RB (2014) 3D printing multifunctionality: structures with electronics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72(5–8):963–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Averous L, Moro L, Dole P, Fringant C (2000) Properties of thermoplastic blends: starch–polycaprolactone. Polymer 41(11):4157–4167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Potnuru A, Tadesse Y (2014) Synthesis and characterization of hybrid actuator based on polypyrrole and SMA. ASME 2014 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, 2014. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p V003T003A003Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tadesse Y, Brennan J, Smith C, Long TE, Priya S (2010) Synthesis and characterization of polypyrrole composite actuator for jellyfish unmanned undersea vehicle. In: Proceedings of SPIE, the international Society for Optical Engineering, 2010. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, BellinghamGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tadesse Y, Grange RW, Priya S (2009) Synthesis and cyclic force characterization of helical polypyrrole actuators for artificial facial muscles. Smart Mater Struct 18(8):085008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Foulger SH (1999) Electrical properties of composites in the vicinity of the percolation threshold. J Appl Polym Sci 72(12):1573–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morgan AJ, San Jose LH, Jamieson WD, Wymant JM, Song B, Stephens P, Barrow DA, Castell OK (2016) Simple and versatile 3D printed microfluidics using fused filament fabrication. PLoS ONE 11(4):e0152023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Belter JT, Dollar AM (2015) Strengthening of 3D printed fused deposition manufactured parts using the fill compositing technique. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0122915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gao Y, Li H, Liu J (2012) Direct writing of flexible electronics through room temperature liquid metal ink. PLoS ONE 7(9):e45485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yeo J, Hong S, Lee D, Hotz N, Lee M-T, Grigoropoulos CP, Ko SH (2012) Next generation non-vacuum, maskless, low temperature nanoparticle ink laser digital direct metal patterning for a large area flexible electronics. PLoS ONE 7(8):e42315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kumar B, Castro M, Feller J-F (2012) Poly(lactic acid)–multi-wall carbon nanotube conductive biopolymer nanocomposite vapour sensors. Sens Actuators B 161(1):621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mukhopadhyay S (2011) Nanoscale multifunctional materials: science & applications. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liang C, Li Z, Dai S (2008) Mesoporous carbon materials: synthesis and modification. Angew Chem Int Ed 47(20):3696–3717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sobkowicz MJ, Dorgan JR, Gneshin KW, Herring AM, McKinnon JT (2009) Supramolecular bioNanocomposites: grafting of biobased polylactide to carbon nanoparticle surfaces. Aust J Chem 62(8):865–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Srivastava S (2012) Effect of aggregation on thermal conductivity and viscosity of nanofluids. Appl Nanosci 2(3):325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Meister S (2012) grain and particle analysis with line intersection method—File Exchange—MATLAB Central. http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/35203-grain-and-particle-analysis-with-line-intersection-method. Accessed 9–26 2014
  54. 54.
    Sathyanarayana S, Hübner C (2013) Thermoplastic nanocomposites with carbon nanotubes. In: Njuguna IJ (ed) Structural nanocomposites. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Liu R, Ma G, Meng F-T, Su Z-G (2005) Preparation of uniform-sized PLA microcapsules by combining Shirasu Porous Glass membrane emulsification technique and multiple emulsion-solvent evaporation method. J Controll Release 103(1):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Haroosh HJ, Chaudhary DS, Dong Y (2012) Electrospun PLA/PCL fibers with tubular nanoclay: morphological and structural analysis. J Appl Polym Sci 124(5):3930–3939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jakus AE, Secor EB, Rutz AL, Jordan SW, Hersam MC, Shah RN (2015) Three-dimensional printing of high-content graphene scaffolds for electronic and biomedical applications. ACS Nano 9(4):4636–4648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Potnuru A (2013) Low noise, interactive robotic system for psychiatric rehabilitation of children. The University of Texas at Dallas, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Burns A, Tadesse Y The mechanical design of a humanoid robot with flexible skin sensor for use in psychiatric therapy. SPIE smart structures and materials + nondestructive evaluation and health monitoring, 2014. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 90562H–90511Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanoid, Biorobotics and Smart Systems (HBS) Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering DepartmentThe University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations