The difference in bone stiffness with the metallic bone fixation implants increases the risk of re-fracture due to osteoporosis in the implant area. In this study, a PLA-based bio-composite bone fixation implant with controllable stiffness capability was fabricated with a 3D printer, and crack growth in samples has been studied. The stiffness controllability was made possible by controlling the fiber and polymers fractions in the 3D printing process. A logical relationship was observed between Vf, critical load, and strain energy release rate. Therefore, it can be expected that the fracture toughness can be estimated in thermoplastic bio-composites bone fixation based on the Vf.
Bhuvanesh KumarMSathiyaP. Methods and materials for additive manufacturing: a critical review on advancements and challenges. Thin-Walled Struct2021; 159: 107228. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.107228.
2.
YaragattiNPatnaikA. A review on additive manufacturing of polymers composites. Mater Today Proc2020; 44: 4150–4157. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.490
3.
DaminaboSCGoelSGrammatikosSA, et al.Fused deposition modeling-based additive manufacturing (3D printing): techniques for polymer material systems. Mater Today Chem2020; 16: 100248. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100248
4.
FalahatiMAhmadvandPSafaeeS, et al.Smart polymers and nanocomposites for 3D and 4D printing. Mater Today2020; 40: 215–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2020.06.001
5.
RoudbarianNBaniasadiMAnsariM, et al.An experimental investigation on structural design of shape memory polymers. Smart Mater Struct2019; 28(9): 095017. DOI: 10.1088/1361-665X/ab3246
6.
MannsMMoralesJFrohnP. Additive manufacturing of silicon based PneuNets as soft robotic actuators. Proceed CIRP2018; 72: 328–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.186
7.
ClarkeGAHartseBXNiaraki AsliAE, et al.Advancement of sensor integrated organ-on-chip devices. Sensors2021; 21(4): 1367. DOI: 10.3390/s21041367
8.
NegriniNCCelikkinNTarsiniP, et al.Three-dimensional printing of chemically crosslinked gelatin hydrogels for adipose tissue engineering. Biofabrication2020; 12(2): 025001. DOI: 10.1088/1758-5090/ab56f9
9.
KabiriALiaghatGAlaviF, et al.Glass fiber/polypropylene composites with potential of bone fracture fixation plates: manufacturing process and mechanical characterization. J Compos Mater2020; 54(30): 4903–4919. DOI: 10.1177/0021998320940367
LassilaLSäilynojaEPrinssiR, et al.Fracture behavior of Bi-structure fiber-reinforced composite restorations. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 101: 103444. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103444
12.
TiuJBelliRLohbauerU. R-curve behavior of a short-fiber reinforced resin composite after water storage. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 104: 103674. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103674
13.
İnalOAkbolatMÇSoutisC, et al.Toughening mechanisms in cost-effective carbon-epoxy laminates with thermoplastic veils: mode-I and in-situ SEM fracture characterisation. Int J Light Mater Manuf2021; 4(1): 50–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlmm.2020.07.003
14.
Bagheri SaedABehraveshAHHasanniaS, et al.An in vitro study on the key features of Poly L-lactic acid/biphasic calcium phosphate scaffolds fabricated via DLP 3D printing for bone grafting. Eur Polym J2020; 141: 110057. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.110057
15.
DubinenkoGEZinovievALBolbasovEN, et al.Preparation of poly(L-lactic acid)/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds by fused deposit modeling 3D printing. Mater Today Proc2020; 22: 228–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.092
16.
ShuaiCYangWFengP, et al.Accelerated degradation of HAP/PLLA bone scaffold by PGA blending facilitates bioactivity and osteoconductivity. Bioact Mater2021; 6(2): 490–502. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32995675/
17.
NiTLiuMZhangY, et al.3D bioprinting of bone marrow stem cell-laden silk fibroin double network scaffolds for cartilage tissue repair. Bioconjug Chem2020; 31(8): 1938–1947. DOI: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.0c00298
18.
HedayatiSKBehraveshAHHasanniaS, et al.3D printed PCL scaffold reinforced with continuous biodegradable fiber yarn: a study on mechanical and cell viability properties. Polym Test2020; 83: 106347. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106347
19.
CamineroMAChacónJMGarcía-MorenoI, et al.Interlaminar bonding performance of 3D printed continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modelling. Polym Test2018; 68: 415–423. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.04.038
20.
NawaflehNCelikE. Additive manufacturing of short fiber reinforced thermoset composites with unprecedented mechanical performance. Addit Manuf2020; 33: 101109. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101109
21.
NagendraJSrinathMKSujeethS, et al.Optimization of process parameters and evaluation of surface roughness for 3D printed nylon-aramid composite. Mater Today Proc2020; 44: 674–682. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.609
22.
ShanmugamVRajendranDJJBabuK, et al.The mechanical testing and performance analysis of polymer-fibre composites prepared through the additive manufacturing. Polym Test2021; 93: 106925. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106925
23.
WangFZhengJWangG, et al.A novel printing strategy in additive manufacturing of continuous carbon fiber reinforced plastic composites. Manuf Lett2021; 27: 72–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.mfglet.2020.12.006
24.
BironM. Thermoplastics and Thermoplastic Composites. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2018. doi:10.1016/c2017-0-01099-6
25.
MallickPK. Materials, Design and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles, 2010. DOI: 10.1533/9781845697822.
26.
BironM. Material Selection for Thermoplastic Parts. Practical and Advanced Information; 2016.
27.
PenumakalaPKSantoJThomasA. A critical review on the fused deposition modeling of thermoplastic polymer composites. Compos Part B Eng2020; 201: 108336. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108336
28.
ParlevlietPPBerseeHENBeukersA. Residual stresses in thermoplastic composites-A study of the literature-Part II: experimental techniques. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2007; 38(3): 651–665. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2006.07.002
29.
ChabchoubMVieilleBMoutou PittiR. Numerical estimation of the mode I strain energy release rate in woven-ply thermoplastic-based composites at high temperature based on G θ method. Theor Appl Fract Mech2019; 101: 169–177. DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.02.018
30.
FerreiraRTLAmatteICDutraTA, et al.Experimental characterization and micrography of 3D printed PLA and PLA reinforced with short carbon fibers. Compos Part B Eng2017; 124: 88–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.013
31.
VieilleBChabchoubMGautreletC. Influence of matrix ductility and toughness on strain energy release rate and failure behavior of woven-ply reinforced thermoplastic structures at high temperature. Compos Part B Eng2018; 132: 125–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.08.011
32.
ArifMFAlhashmiHVaradarajanKM, et al.Multifunctional performance of carbon nanotubes and graphene nanoplatelets reinforced PEEK composites enabled via FFF additive manufacturing. Compos Part B Eng2020; 184: 107625. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107625
33.
WangDZaheriARussellB, et al.Fiber reorientation in hybrid helicoidal composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 110: 103914. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103914
34.
ZhengJKangJSunC, et al.Effects of printing path and material components on mechanical properties of 3D-printed polyether-ether-ketone/hydroxyapatite composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 118: 104475, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104475
35.
HeQWangHFuK, et al.3D printed continuous CF/PA6 composites: Effect of microscopic voids on mechanical performance. Compos Sci Technol2020; 191: 108077. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108077.
36.
ChacónJMCamineroMANúñezPJ, et al.Additive manufacturing of continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical properties. Compos Sci Technol2019; 181: 107688. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.107688
37.
YavasDZhangZLiuQ, et al.Interlaminar shear behavior of continuous and short carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites fabricated by additive manufacturing. Compos Part B Eng2021; 204: 108460. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108460
38.
TorradoARShemelyaCMEnglishJD, et al.Characterizing the effect of additives to ABS on the mechanical property anisotropy of specimens fabricated by material extrusion 3D printing. Addit Manuf2015; 6: 16–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2015.02.001
39.
SwolfsYPinhoST. 3D printed continuous fi bre-reinforced composites: bio-inspired microstructures for improving the translaminar fracture toughness. Compos Sci Technol2019; 182: 107731. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.107731
GohGDDikshitVNagalingamAP, et al.Characterization of mechanical properties and fracture mode of additively manufactured carbon fiber and glass fiber reinforced thermoplastics. Mater Des2018; 137: 79–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.10.021
DamodaranVCastellanosAGMilostanM, et al.Improving the mode-II interlaminar fracture toughness of polymeric matrix composites through additive manufacturing. Mater Des2018; 157: 60–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2018.07.006
44.
LiuTTianXZhangM, et al.Interfacial performance and fracture patterns of 3D printed continuous carbon fi ber with sizing reinforced PA6 composites. Compos Part A2018; 114: 368–376. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.09.001
45.
TanoǧluMSeyhanAT. Compressive mechanical behaviour of e-glass/polyester composite laminates tailored with a thermoplastic preforming binder. Mater Sci Eng A2003; 363(1–2): 335–344. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2003.08.005
46.
LiZWangYCaoJ, et al.Effects of loading rates on mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon/epoxy composite toughened by carbon nanotube films. Compos Part B2020; 200: 108270. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108270
47.
KazemiMEShanmugamLChenS, et al.Novel thermoplastic fiber metal laminates manufactured with an innovative acrylic resin at room temperature. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2020; 138: 106043. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106043
48.
ShanmugamLKazemiMERaoZ, et al.Enhanced Mode I fracture toughness of UHMWPE fabric/thermoplastic laminates with combined surface treatments of polydopamine and functionalized carbon nanotubes. Compos Part B2019; 178: 107450. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107450
49.
ZhaoTPalardyGVillegasIF, et al.Mechanical behaviour of thermoplastic composites spot-welded and mechanically fastened joints: a preliminary comparison. Compos Part B2017; 112: 224–234. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.12.028
50.
QuanDBolognaFScarselliG, et al.Mode-II fracture behaviour of aerospace-grade carbon fibre/epoxy composites interleaved with thermoplastic veils. Compos Sci Technol2020; 191: 108065. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2020.108065
51.
ShanmugamLNaebeMKimJ, et al.Recovery of mode I self-healing interlaminar fracture toughness of fiber metal laminate by modified double cantilever beam test. Compos Commun2019; 16: 25–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.coco.2019.08.009
52.
NagiCSOginSLMohagheghianI, et al.Spray deposition of graphene nano-platelets for modifying interleaves in carbon fi bre reinforced polymer laminates. Mater Des2020; 193: 108831. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108831
53.
QuanDAlderliestenRDransfeldC, et al.Enhancing the fracture toughness of carbon fibre/epoxy composites by interleaving hybrid meltable/non-meltable thermoplastic veils. Compos Struct2020; 252: 112699. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112699
54.
ReisJPMoura DeMFSFMoreiraRDF, et al.Mixed mode I + II interlaminar fracture characterization of carbon-fibre reinforced polyamide composite using the Single-Leg Bending test. Mater Today Commun2019; 19: 476–481. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.05.006.
55.
ChengCChenZHuangZ, et al.Simultaneously improving mode I and mode II fracture toughness of the carbon fiber/epoxy composite laminates via interleaved with uniformly aligned PES fiber webs. Compos Part A2019; 219: 105696. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105696
56.
IpakchiHRezadoustAMEsfandehM, et al.An investigation on the effect of polyvinyl butyral interlayer forms on the fracture toughness of glass reinforced phenolic laminates. Thin-Walled Struct2020; 151: 106724. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.106724
57.
CaiSLiYLiuHY, et al.Effect of electrospun polysulfone/cellulose nanocrystals interleaves on the interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon fiber/epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol2019; 181: 107673. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.05.030
58.
ChenHWangJNiA, et al.Effect of nano-OMMTs on mode I and mode II fracture toughness of continuous glass fibre reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos Struct2019; 208: 498–506. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.003
59.
QuanDMischoCBinsfeldL, et al.Fracture behaviour of carbon fibre/epoxy composites interleaved by MWCNT- and graphene nanoplatelet-doped thermoplastic veils. Compos Struct2020; 235: 111767. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111767
60.
ObandeWMamalisDRayD, et al.Mechanical and thermomechanical characterisation of vacuum-infused thermoplastic- and thermoset-based composites. Mater Des2019; 175: 107828. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107828
61.
ChabchoubMVieilleBPittiRM. Numerical estimation of the mode I strain energy release rate in woven-ply thermoplastic-based composites at high temperature based on G θ method. Theor Appl Fract Mech2019; 101: 169–177. DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.02.018
62.
WilkJ. Applicability of mode II interlaminar fracture toughness testing methods for characterization of thermoplastic laminates with woven fabric reinforcements. Eng Fract Mech2019; 216: 106533. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106533
63.
MaYYangYSugaharaT, et al.A study on the failure behavior and mechanical properties of unidirectional fiber reinforced thermosetting and thermoplastic composites. Compos Part B Eng2016; 99: 162–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.005
64.
GhabeziPFarahaniM. A cohesive model with a multi-stage softening behavior to predict fracture in nano composite joints. Eng Fract Mech2019; 219: 106611. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106611
65.
GhabeziPFarahaniM. Trapezoidal traction–separation laws in mode II fracture in nano-composite and nano-adhesive joints. J Reinf Plast Compos2018; 37(11): 780–794. DOI: 10.1177/0731684418761001
66.
GhabeziPFarahaniM. Characterization of cohesive model and bridging laws in mode I and II fracture in nanocomposite laminates. J Mech Eng Sci2018; 12: 4329–4355. DOI: 10.15282/jmes.12.4.2018.24.0370
67.
GhabeziPFarahaniMR. Experimental investigation of nanoparticles effects on cohesive model and bridging laws of mode I fracture in the adhesive joints. J Adhes Sci Technol2017; 31(16): 1807–1823. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2017.1284639
68.
AnsariMGolzarMBaghaniM, et al.Shape memory characterization of poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL)/polyurethane (PU) in combined torsion-tension loading with potential applications in cardiovascular stent. Polym Test2018; 68: 424–432. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.04.032
69.
AnsariMGolzarMBaghaniM, et al.Force recovery evaluation of thermo-induced shape-memory polymer stent: material, process and thermo-viscoelastic characterization. Smart Mater Struct2019; 28(9): 095022. DOI: 10.1088/1361-665X/ab28fc
70.
ASTM D5528-94a. (1994). Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites, In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
71.
DaviesPCasariPCarlssonLA. Influence of fibre volume fraction on mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of glass/epoxy using the 4ENF specimen. Compos Sci Technol2005; 65(2): 295–300. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.07.014
