Advertisement

Architectured Polymeric Materials Produced by Additive Manufacturing

  • Andrey MolotnikovEmail author
  • George P. Simon
  • Yuri Estrin
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Materials Science book series (SSMATERIALS, volume 282)

Abstract

Polymers play an important role in our everyday life. With the advent of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, the design and manufacture of new polymer-based composite materials has experienced a significant boost. AM enables precise deposition of printable material(s) with micro scale accuracy to build up a desired structure in three dimensions in a layer-by-layer fashion. In this chapter, recent advances in the use of additive manufacturing for the design of architectured polymer-based materials is discussed. A compendium of the existing AM methods is presented, followed by an overview of applications of AM technology to fabrication of polymer-based materials with engineered inner architecture.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their colleagues, collaborators and former students, especially Ehsan Bafekrpour, Lee Djumas, Yunhe Zheng, and Nathan Way who contributed to some of the content shown.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Weiner, H.D. Wagner, The material bone: structure-mechanical function relations. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 28(1), 271–298 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Fratzl et al., Structure and mechanical quality of the collagen-mineral nano-composite in bone. J. Mater. Chem. 14(14), 2115–2123 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.D. Currey, Bones: Structure and Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Fratzl, R. Weinkamer, Nature’s hierarchical materials. Prog. Mater Sci. 52(8), 1263–1334 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Pokroy, V. Demensky, E. Zolotoyabko, Nacre in mollusk shells as a multilayered structure with strain gradient. Adv. Funct. Mater. 19(7), 1054–1059 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.A. Meyers et al., Mechanical strength of abalone nacre: role of the soft organic layer. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 1(1), 76–85 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Aizenberg et al., Biological glass fibers: correlation between optical and structural properties. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101(10), 3358 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.O. Ritchie, The conflicts between strength and toughness. Nat. Mater. 10(11), 817–822 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Bréchet, Designing hybrid materials. Acta Mater. 51(19), 5801–5821 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y.J.M. Brechet, Chapter 1 Architectured materials: an alternative to microstructure control for structural materials design? A possible playground for bio-inspiration? in Materials Design Inspired by Nature: Function Through Inner Architecture (The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2013), pp. 1–16Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies (Springer, New York, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. D’Aveni, The 3-D printing revolution. Harvard Bus. Rev. 93(5), 40–48 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.L. Truby, J.A. Lewis, Printing soft matter in three dimensions. Nature 540(7633), 371–378 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.W. Hull, Apparatus for Production of Three-Dimensional Objects by Stereolithography (USA, 1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Raman, R. Bashir, Chapter 6—Stereolithographic 3D bioprinting for biomedical applications, in Essentials of 3D Biofabrication and Translation, ed. by A. Atala, J.J. Yoo (Academic Press, Boston, 2015), pp. 89–121Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.W. Stansbury, M.J. Idacavage, 3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent. Mater. 32(1), 54–64 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    F.P.W. Melchels, J. Feijen, D.W. Grijpma, A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials 31(24), 6121–6130 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.R. Tumbleston et al., Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects. Science 347(6228), 1349 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Heller et al., Vinyl esters: low cytotoxicity monomers for the fabrication of biocompatible 3D scaffolds by lithography based additive manufacturing. J. Polym. Sci. Part A Polym. Chem. 47(24), 6941–6954 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Materialise, Materialise’s Mammoth Stereolithography—3D Printing on a Grand Scale! February 28, 2014 [cited 2018 2.07.2018]. Available from https://www.materialise.com/en/blog/materialises-mammoth-stereolithography-3d-printing-on-a-grand-scale
  21. 21.
    B.H. Cumpston et al., Two-photon polymerization initiators for three-dimensional optical data storage and microfabrication. Nature 398, 51 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Farsari et al., Three-dimensional biomolecule patterning. Appl. Surf. Sci. 253(19), 8115–8118 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L.R. Meza et al., Resilient 3D hierarchical architected metamaterials. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 11502–11507 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    X. Zheng et al., Multiscale metallic metamaterials. Nat. Mater. 15(10), 1100–1106 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Kotz et al., Three-dimensional printing of transparent fused silica glass. Nature 544(7650), 337–339 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J.H. Sandoval, B.W. Ryan, Functionalizing stereolithography resins: effects of dispersed multi-walled carbon nanotubes on physical properties. Rapid Prototyping J. 12(5), 292–303 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    L. Dong et al., 3D stereolithography printing of graphene oxide reinforced complex architectures. Nanotechnology 26(43), 434003 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Y. Duan et al., Nano-TiO2-modified photosensitive resin for RP. Rapid Prototyping J. 17(4), 247–252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J.-W. Choi, E. MacDonald, R. Wicker, Multi-material microstereolithography. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 49(5), 543–551 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J.-W. Choi, H.-C. Kim, R. Wicker, Multi-material stereolithography. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 211(3), 318–328 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. Arcaute, B. Mann, R. Wicker, Stereolithography of spatially controlled multi-material bioactive poly(ethylene glycol) scaffolds. Acta Biomater. 6(3), 1047–1054 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    R.D. Goodridge, C.J. Tuck, R.J.M. Hague, Laser sintering of polyamides and other polymers. Prog. Mater Sci. 57(2), 229–267 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    J.P. Kruth et al., Consolidation phenomena in laser and powder-bed based layered manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 56(2), 730–759 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    H. Chung, S. Das, Functionally graded Nylon-11/silica nanocomposites produced by selective laser sintering. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 487(1), 251–257 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    S.R. Athreya, K. Kalaitzidou, S. Das, Processing and characterization of a carbon black-filled electrically conductive Nylon-12 nanocomposite produced by selective laser sintering. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527(10), 2637–2642 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    H. Chung, S. Das, Processing and properties of glass bead particulate-filled functionally graded Nylon-11 composites produced by selective laser sintering. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 437(2), 226–234 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    H.C. Kim, H.T. Hahn, Y.S. Yang, Synthesis of PA12/functionalized GNP nanocomposite powders for the selective laser sintering process. J. Compos. Mater. 47(4), 501–509 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    H. Zheng et al., Effect of core–shell composite particles on the sintering behavior and properties of nano-Al2O3/polystyrene composite prepared by SLS. Mater. Lett. 60(9), 1219–1223 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    X. Wang et al., 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: a review and prospective. Compos. B Eng. 110, 442–458 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    E. Kroner, E. Arzt, Gecko Adhesion, in Encyclopedia of Nanotechnology, ed. by B. Bhushan (Springer Netherlands, 2012), pp. 934–943Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    B.N. Turner, S.A. Gold, A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: II. Materials, dimensional accuracy, and surface roughness. Rapid Prototyping J. 21(3), 250–261 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    B.N. Turner, R. Strong, S.A. Gold, A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling. Rapid Prototyping J. 20(3), 192–204 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    W. Zhong et al., Short fiber reinforced composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 301(2), 125–130 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    H.L. Tekinalp et al., Highly oriented carbon fiber–polymer composites via additive manufacturing. Compos. Sci. Technol. 105, 144–150 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    F. Ning et al., Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modeling. Compos. B Eng. 80, 369–378 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    X. Tian et al., Interface and performance of 3D printed continuous carbon fiber reinforced PLA composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 88, 198–205 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    X. Wei et al., 3D printable graphene composite. Sci. Rep. 5, 11181 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Y. Chuncheng et al., 3D printing for continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites: mechanism and performance. Rapid Prototyping J. 23(1), 209–215 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    G.W. Melenka et al., Evaluation and prediction of the tensile properties of continuous fiber-reinforced 3D printed structures. Compos. Struct. 153, 866–875 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    R. Matsuzaki et al., Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber composites by in-nozzle impregnation. Sci. Rep. 6, 23058 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    M. Nikzad, S.H. Masood, I. Sbarski, Thermo-mechanical properties of a highly filled polymeric composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater. Des. 32(6), 3448–3456 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    A.A. Zadpoor, J. Malda, Additive manufacturing of biomaterials, tissues, and organs. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 45(1), 1–11 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    F.S. Senatov et al., Mechanical properties and shape memory effect of 3D-printed PLA-based porous scaffolds. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 57, 139–148 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Q. Zhang et al., Pattern transformation of heat-shrinkable polymer by three-dimensional (3D) printing technique. Sci. Rep. 5, 8936 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Z.X. Khoo et al., 3D printing of smart materials: a review on recent progresses in 4D printing. Virtual Phys. Prototyping 10(3), 103–122 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    T. van Manen, S. Janbaz, A.A. Zadpoor, Programming 2D/3D shape-shifting with hobbyist 3D printers. Mater. Horiz. 4(6), 1064–1069 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    E. David et al., Multi-material, multi-technology FDM: exploring build process variations. Rapid Prototyping J. 20(3), 236–244 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    N. Way, Additive Manufacturing of Multi-Material Composite Flexible Structures in Department of Materials Science and Enginering (Monash University, Clayton, 2017)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    J.A. Lewis, Direct ink writing of 3D functional materials. Adv. Funct. Mater. 16(17), 2193–2204 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    A. Sydney Gladman et al., Biomimetic 4D printing. Nat. Mater. 15, 413 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Y. Kim et al., Printing ferromagnetic domains for untethered fast-transforming soft materials. Nature 558(7709), 274–279 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    A. Clausen et al., Topology optimized architectures with programmable Poisson’s ratio over large deformations. Adv. Mater. 27(37), 5523–5527 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    S. Shan et al., Multistable architected materials for trapping elastic strain energy. Adv. Mater. 27(29), 4296–4301 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    T.J. Ober, D. Foresti, J.A. Lewis, Active mixing of complex fluids at the microscale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(40), 12293–12298 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    B.G. Compton, J.A. Lewis, 3D-printing of lightweight cellular composites. Adv. Mater. 26(34), 5930–5935 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    J.J. Martin, B.E. Fiore, R.M. Erb, Designing bioinspired composite reinforcement architectures via 3D magnetic printing. Nat. Commun. 6, 8641 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    A.R. Studart, Additive manufacturing of biologically-inspired materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 45(2), 359–376 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    J.R. Raney et al., Rotational 3D printing of damage-tolerant composites with programmable mechanics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2018)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    B. Derby, Inkjet printing of functional and structural materials: fluid property requirements, feature stability, and resolution. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 40(1), 395–414 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    L.S. Dimas et al., Tough composites inspired by mineralized natural materials: computation, 3d printing, and testing. Adv. Funct. Mater. 23(36), 4629–4638 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    L.S. Dimas, M.J. Buehler, Modeling and additive manufacturing of bio-inspired composites with tunable fracture mechanical properties. Soft Matter 10(25), 4436–4442 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    E. Lin et al., 3D printed, bio-inspired prototypes and analytical models for structured suture interfaces with geometrically-tuned deformation and failure behavior. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 73, 166–182 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    P. Zhang, M.A. Heyne, A.C. To, Biomimetic staggered composites with highly enhanced energy dissipation: modeling, 3D printing, and testing. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 83, 285–300 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    V. Slesarenko, N. Kazarinov, S. Rudykh, Distinct failure modes in bio-inspired 3D-printed staggered composites under non-aligned loadings. Smart Mater. Struct. 26(3), 035053 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    R. Mirzaeifar et al., Defect-tolerant bioinspired hierarchical composites: simulation and experiment. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 1(5), 295–304 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    F. Libonati et al., Bone-inspired materials by design: toughness amplification observed using 3D printing and testing. Adv. Eng. Mater. 18(8), 1354–1363 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    L. Guiducci et al., Honeycomb actuators inspired by the unfolding of ice plant seed capsules. PLoS ONE 11(11), e0163506 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    L. Guiducci et al., The geometric design and fabrication of actuating cellular structures. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2(11), 1–6 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    D. Raviv et al., Active printed materials for complex self-evolving deformations. Sci. Rep. 4, 7422 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    L. Wen, J.C. Weaver, G.V. Lauder, Biomimetic shark skin: design, fabrication and hydrodynamic function. J. Exp. Biol. 217(10), 1656–1666 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    A.G. Domel et al., Shark skin-inspired designs that improve aerodynamic performance. J. R. Soc. Interface 15(139) (2018)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    T. Skylar, C. Kenny, Programmable materials for architectural assembly and automation. Assembly Autom. 32(3), 216–225 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    S. Tibbits, Design to self-assembly. Architectural Des. 82(2), 68–73 (2012)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    G.X. Gu et al., Printing nature: unraveling the role of nacre’s mineral bridges. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 76, 135–144 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    L. Djumas et al., Enhanced mechanical performance of bio-inspired hybrid structures utilising topological interlocking geometry. Sci. Rep. 6, 26706 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    G.X. Gu et al., Biomimetic additive manufactured polymer composites for improved impact resistance. Extreme Mech. Lett. 9, 317–323 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    G.X. Gu, M. Takaffoli, M.J. Buehler, Hierarchically enhanced impact resistance of bioinspired composites. Adv. Mater. 29(28), 1700060 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Y. Jingjie et al., Materials-by-design: computation, synthesis, and characterization from atoms to structures. Phys. Scr. 93(5), 053003 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Y. Zheng, Design of hybrid materials using multi-material 3D printer, in Department of Materials Science and Engineering (Monash University, Clayton, Australia, 2015)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    M. Kamperman et al., Functional adhesive surfaces with “Gecko” effect: the concept of contact splitting. Adv. Eng. Mater. 12(5), 335–348 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    M. Micciché, E. Arzt, E. Kroner, Single macroscopic pillars as model system for bioinspired adhesives: influence of tip dimension, aspect ratio, and tilt angle. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6(10), 7076–7083 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    G. Qi et al., Active origami by 4D printing. Smart Mater. Struct. 23(9), 094007 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Q. Ge, H.J. Qi, M.L. Dunn, Active materials by four-dimension printing. Appl. Phys. Lett. 103(13), 131901 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    A.T. Gaynor et al., Multiple-material topology optimization of compliant mechanisms created via PolyJet three-dimensional printing. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136(6), 061015 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    E. Bafekrpour et al., Internally architectured materials with directionally asymmetric friction. Sci. Rep. 5, 10732 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    E. Bafekrpour et al., Responsive materials: a novel design for enhanced machine-augmented composites. Sci. Rep. 4, 3783 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    G.F. Hawkins, Augmenting the mechanical properties of materials by embedding simple machines. J. Adv. Mater. 34, 16–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    F. Javid et al., Dimpled elastic sheets: a new class of non-porous negative Poisson’s ratio materials. Sci. Rep. 5, 18373 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Z. Liu et al., Functional gradients and heterogeneities in biological materials: design principles, functions, and bioinspired applications. Prog. Mater. Sci. 88, 467–498 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    P.-Y. Chen, J. McKittrick, M.A. Meyers, Biological materials: functional adaptations and bioinspired designs. Prog. Mater. Sci. 57(8), 1492–1704 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    M.A. Meyers et al., Biological materials: a materials science approach. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 4(5), 626–657 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    I.H. Chen et al., Armadillo armor: mechanical testing and micro-structural evaluation. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 4(5), 713–722 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    E.L. Doubrovski et al., Voxel-based fabrication through material property mapping: a design method for bitmap printing. Comput. Aided Des. 60, 3–13 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    M. Osanov, J.K. Guest, Topology optimization for architected materials design, in Annual Review of Materials Research, ed. by D.R. Clarke, vol 46 (Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, 2016), pp. 211–233Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    P. Zhang et al., Efficient design-optimization of variable-density hexagonal cellular structure by additive manufacturing: theory and validation. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 137(2), 021004 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    G.X. Gu, C.-T. Chen, M.J. Buehler, De novo composite design based on machine learning algorithm. Extreme Mech. Lett. 18, 19–28 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrey Molotnikov
    • 1
    Email author
  • George P. Simon
    • 1
  • Yuri Estrin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations