Interpolation of tensile properties of polymer composite based on Polyjet 3D printing

Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

This research utilizes the advancement of multi-polymer jetting technology to construct structures from composite layers using polymer materials, and with goal to interpolate intermediate tensile properties that meets the application requirement without compromising the design form. The research hypotheses that the tensile properties of a uniformly layered composite can be linearly interpolated from the mass ratios composing its structure. The hypothesis was tested and validated on standard specimens composed of two polymer materials sandwiched in ultrathin layers. The linear regression analysis between mass ratios and the tensile properties exhibits strong coefficient of determinations for the fitted data \(R_{{\text{reg}}}^2\) and the proposed linear model \(R_{{\text{hyp}}}^2\) which were obtained for yield strength, elasticity modulus, maximum strength, and strength at break. The tensile elongations measured at the maximum strength and the rapture strength undergo significant fluctuations that make their regression less linear with the mass ratio. Finally, the elongation at yield remains constant regardless of mass ratio.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Stansbury JW, Idacavage MJ (2016) 3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater 32(1):54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Shofner ML, Lozano K, Rodr\’\iguez-Mac\’\ias FJ, Barrera EV (2003) Nanofiber-reinforced polymers prepared by fused deposition modeling. J Appl Polym Sci 89(11):3081–3090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Malone E, Lipson H (2007) Fab@ Home: the personal desktop fabricator kit. Rapid Prototyp J 13(4):245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sharma A, Bandari V, Ito K, Kohama K, Ramji M, BV HS (2017) A new process for design and manufacture of tailor-made functionally graded composites through friction stir additive manufacturing. J Manuf Process 26:122–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D (2018) Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B Eng 143:172–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wohlers T (2017) Wohlers Report 2017 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry annual worldwide progress report. Wohlers Associates, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

  7. 7.

    Ziółkowski M, Dyl T (2020) Possible applications of additive manufacturing technologies in shipbuilding: a review. Machines 8(4):84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Singh S, Ramakrishna S, Singh R (2017) Material issues in additive manufacturing: a review. J Manuf Process 25:185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2010) Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts. Mater Des 31(1):287–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sachs EM, Haggerty JS, Cima MJ, Williams PA (1993) Three-dimensional printing techniques. sUS Patent 5,204,055

  11. 11.

    Melchels FPW, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials 31(24):6121–6130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Goodridge RD et al (2011) Processing of a Polyamide-12/carbon nanofibre composite by laser sintering. Polym Test 30(1):94–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Billiet T, Vandenhaute M, Schelfhout J, Van Vlierberghe S, Dubruel P (2012) A review of trends and limitations in hydrogel-rapid prototyping for tissue engineering. Biomaterials 33(26):6020–6041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ge Q, Dunn CK, Qi HJ, Dunn ML (2014) Active origami by 4D printing. Smart Mater Struct 23(9):94007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Boparai K, Singh R, Singh H (2015) Comparison of tribological behaviour for Nylon6-Al-Al2O3 and ABS parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling: This paper reports a low cost composite material that is more wear-resistant than conventional ABS. Virtual Phys Prototyp 10(2):59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Nikzad M, Masood SH, Sbarski I (2011) Thermo-mechanical properties of a highly filled polymeric composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater Des 32(6):3448–3456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Masood SH (2014) Comprehensive materials processing. Adv Addit Manuf Tool 10:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Salem Bala A, bin Wahab S et al (2016) Elements and materials improve the FDM products: a review. Adv Eng Forum 16:33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Tekinalp HL et al (2014) Highly oriented carbon fiber–polymer composites via additive manufacturing. Compos Sci Technol 105:144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Le Duigou A, Castro M, Bevan R, Martin N (2016) 3D printing of wood fibre biocomposites: from mechanical to actuation functionality. Mater Des 96:106–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kodama H (1981) Automatic method for fabricating a three-dimensional plastic model with photo-hardening polymer. Rev Sci Instrum 52(11):1770–1773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Huang J, Qin Q, Wang J (2020) A review of stereolithography: processes and systems. Processes 8(9):1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Najmon JC, Raeisi S, Tovar A (2019) Review of additive manufacturing technologies and applications in the aerospace industry. Additive manufacturing for the aerospace industry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 7–31

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wiese M, Thiede S, Herrmann C (2020) Rapid manufacturing of automotive polymer series parts: a systematic review of processes, materials and challenges. Addit Manufs. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Dizon JRC, Espera AH Jr, Chen Q, Advincula RC (2018) Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Addit Manuf 20:44–67

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cooperstein I, Layani M, Magdassi S (2015) 3D printing of porous structures by UV-curable O/W emulsion for fabrication of conductive objects. J Mater Chem C 3(9):2040–2044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4(7):518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Yugang D, Yuan Z, Yiping T, Dichen L (2011) Nano-TiO2-modified photosensitive resin for RP. Rapid Prototyp J 17(4):247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lee J-S, Hong JM, Jung JW, Shim J-H, Oh J-H, Cho D-W (2014) 3D printing of composite tissue with complex shape applied to ear regeneration. Biofabrication 6(2):24103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mannoor MS et al (2013) 3D printed bionic ears. Nano Lett 13(6):2634–2639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gibson I, Liu Y, Savalani MM, Anand LK (2009) Composites in rapid prototyping. J New Gener Sci 7(3):35–47

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    R. M. Mahamood, E. T. Akinlabi, M. Shukla, and S. Pityana, “Functionally graded material: an overview,” 2012.

  33. 33.

    Li Y et al (2020) A Review on Functionally Graded Materials and Structures via Additive Manufacturing: From Multi-Scale Design to Versatile Functional Properties. Adv Mater Technol 5(6):1900981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Yang L, Harrysson O, West H, Cormier D (2015) Mechanical properties of 3D re-entrant honeycomb auxetic structures realized via additive manufacturing. Int J Solids Struct 69:475–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Loh GH, Pei E, Harrison D, Monzon MD (2018) An overview of functionally graded additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 23:34–44

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Ning F, Cong W, Hu Z, Huang K (2017) Additive manufacturing of thermoplastic matrix composites using fused deposition modeling: a comparison of two reinforcements. J Compos Mater 51(27):3733–3742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Sugavaneswaran M, Arumaikkannu G (2018) Additive manufactured multi-material structure with directional specific mechanical properties based upon classical lamination theory. Rapid Prototyp J. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2017-0118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Casavola C, Cazzato A, Moramarco V, Pappalettere C (2016) Orthotropic mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate theory. Mater Des 90:453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wang X, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Gou J, Hui D (2017) 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: a review and prospective. Compos Part B Eng 110:442–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    A. International (2014) Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

  41. 41.

    Kent NJ, Jolivet L, O’Neill P, Brabazon D (2017) An evaluation of components manufactured from a range of materials, fabricated using PolyJet technology. Adv Mater Process Technol 3(3):318–329

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Lambert A, Valiulis S, Cheng Q (2018) Advances in optical sensing and bioanalysis enabled by 3D printing. ACS sensors 3(12):2475–2491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Solidworks (2019) Solidworks [Online]. https://www.solidworks.com

  44. 44.

    GrabCAD (2020). https://grabcad.com/

  45. 45.

    Lin C-C, Wu C-Z, Huang M-S, Huang C-F, Cheng H-C, Wang DP (2020) Fully digital workflow for planning static guided implant surgery: a prospective accuracy study. J Clin Med 9(4):980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    stratasys. Digital Material Data sheet [Online]. https://www.stratasys.com/.

  47. 47.

    Miao S et al (2017) 4D printing of polymeric materials for tissue and organ regeneration. Mater Today 20(10):577–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Slesarenko V, Engelkemier S, Galich PI, Vladimirsky D, Klein G, Rudykh S (2018) Strategies to control performance of 3d-printed, cable-driven soft polymer actuators: From simple architectures to gripper prototype. Polymers (Basel) 10(8):846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Chantarapanich N, Puttawibul P, Sitthiseripratip K, Sucharitpwatskul S, Chantaweroad S (2013) Study of the mechanical properties of photo-cured epoxy resin fabricated by stereolithography process. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 35(1):91–98

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Mathworks (2019) Matlab [Online]. https://www.mathworks.com/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research is conducted under support from ODHE-RAPIDS2018 “Collaborative Workforce Training Based on the Integration of Distributed Additive Manufacturing Capabilities in Cyber-Physical Environment”.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Mechatronics Engineering Technology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, 43402, USA

    Mohammad Mayyas

Authors
  1. Mohammad Mayyas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Mayyas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayyas, M. Interpolation of tensile properties of polymer composite based on Polyjet 3D printing. Prog Addit Manuf (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00170-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Additive manufacturing
  • Polymer composite material
  • Material prediction model
  • SLA