Additive manufacturing is regarded as a very efficient fabrication technique since it permits the manufacturing of any three-dimensional product. The present work determines the effect of various infill pattern on the mechanical properties in term of tensile strength, yield strength and hardness of poly-lactic acid (PLA) samples fabricated by fused deposition modeling method. The mechanical behaviour of the 3D-printed PLAs investigated using dog-bone specimens with six distinct infill patterns: line, triangle, tri-hexagon, cubic, octet, and gyroid. The mechanical characteristics were evaluated using the uniaxial tensile test and shore D type hardness tester. The strain and deformation criteria were employed to substantiate the ductile and brittle characteristics. The fractural surface morphology analyzed using the field emission scanning electron microscope. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was employed to simulate the uniaxial tensile test and establish a Yeoh third order hyperelastic material model for the predictions of the stress-strain response. This model is chosen for its precise ability to predict the nonlinear stress-strain responses for significant deformation and is crucial in applications that involve high degrees of flexibility and elasticity, such as in tire modeling, polymer and elastomer analysis, sports equipment designing, 3D printed components etc. Results revealed that the cubic infill had a maximum tensile strength 32.648 ± 1.42 MPa and octet infill had a minimum tensile strength 22.373 ± 0.79 MPa. The majority of experimental data indicated a brittle behaviour for line-infilled, but triangular, trihexagonal, cubic, octet, and gyroid infill patterns demonstrated ductile behaviour. In comparison to other geometrical infills, cubic shown relatively superior mechanical responses. Consequently, the geometrical infill effect plays a significant role in finding the appropriate mechanical property for industrial applications. The developed material model possesses potential utility in non-linear FEA investigations pertaining to 3D printed PLA objects that are predicted to sustain tensile strength.
WangXJiangMZhouZ, et al.3D printing of polymer matrix composites: a review and prospective. Compos B Eng2017; 110: 442–458. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.034.
2.
ParandoushPLinD. A review on additive manufacturing of polymer-fiber composites. Compos Struct2017; 182: 36–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.08.088.
3.
NgoTDKashaniAImbalzanoG, et al.Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B Eng2018; 143: 172–196. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012Getrightsandcontent.
4.
ZhangZWangBHuiD, et al.3D bioprinting of soft materials-based regenerative vascular structures and tissues. Compos B Eng2017; 123: 279–291. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.011.
5.
GibsonIRosenDWStuckerB, et al.Additive manufacturing technologies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021.
6.
KuclouryaTMonroyRAhmadR. Design of experiments to compare the reprocessing effect with Fused Deposition Modeling printing parameters on mechanical properties of Polylactic Acid specimens towards circular economy. Prog Rubber Plast Recycl Technol2023; 39(2): 111–140. DOI: 10.1177/14777606221145702.
7.
RafieMAFMarsillaKKHamidZAA, et al.Enhanced mechanical properties of plasticized polylactic acid filament for fused deposition modelling: effect of in situ heat treatment. Prog Rubber Plast Recycl Technol2020; 36(2): 131–142. DOI: 10.1177/1477760619895018.
8.
StepashkinААChukovDISenatovFS, et al.3D-printed PEEK-carbon fiber (CF) composites: structure and thermal properties. Compos Sci Technol2018; 164: 319–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.05.032.
9.
PylLKalteremidouKAVan HemelrijckD. Exploration of the design freedom of 3D printed continuous fibre-reinforced polymers in open-hole tensile strength tests. Compos Sci Technol2019; 171: 135–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.12.021.
10.
ZhangSUHanJKangHW. Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of ABS parts fabricated by fused deposition modeling and vapor smoothing. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2017; 18: 763–769. DOI: 10.1007/s12541-017-0091-7.
11.
Palani KumarKShadrach Jeya SekaranADineshL, et al.Natural sisal fiber-based woven glass hybrid polymer composites for mono leaf spring: experimental and numerical analysis. Prog Rubber Plast Recycl Technol2021; 37(1): 32–48. DOI: 10.1177/1477760620918605.
12.
WangSMaYDengZ, et al.Implementation of an elastoplastic constitutive model for 3D-printed materials fabricated by stereolithography. Addit Manuf2020; 33: 101104. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101104.
13.
GünayEEVelineniAParkK, et al.An investigation on process capability analysis for fused filament fabrication. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2020; 21: 759–774. DOI: 10.1007/s12541-019-00298-4.
14.
WolfsRJMBosFPSaletTAM. Early age mechanical behaviour of 3D printed concrete: numerical modelling and experimental testing. Cement Concr Res2018; 106: 103–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.02.001.
15.
PandaBLimJHTanMJ. Mechanical properties and deformation behaviour of early age concrete in the context of digital construction. Compos B Eng2019; 165: 563–571. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.040.
16.
TalaganiMRDorMohammadiSDuttonR, et al.Numerical simulation of big area additive manufacturing (3D printing) of a full-size car. SAMPE J2015; 51(4): 27–36.
17.
DoAVKhorsandBGearySM, et al.3D printing of scaffolds for tissue regeneration applications. Adv Healthc Mater2015; 4(12): 1742–1762. DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201500168.
18.
ZhuWMaXGouM, et al.3D printing of functional biomaterials for tissue engineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol2016; 40: 103–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2016.03.014.
19.
WangMOVorwaldCEDreherML, et al.Evaluating 3D-printed biomaterials as scaffolds for vascularized bone tissue engineering. Adv Mater2015; 27(1): 138–144. DOI: 10.1002/adma.201403943.
20.
RadmaneshSShabangizSKoupaeiN, et al.3D printed bio polymeric materials as a new perspective for wound dressing and skin tissue engineering applications: a review. J Polym Res2022; 29(2): 50. DOI: 10.1007/s10965-022-02899-6.
21.
GodoiFCPrakashSBhandariBR. 3d printing technologies applied for food design: status and prospects. J Food Eng2016; 179: 44–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.01.025.
22.
SunJZhouWHuangD, et al.An overview of 3D printing technologies for food fabrication. Food Bioproc Tech2015; 8(8): 1605–1615. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-015-1528-6.
23.
LiptonJICutlerMNiglF, et al.Additive manufacturing for the food industry. Trends Food Sci Technol2015; 43(1): 114–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.02.004.
24.
WangBZChenY. The effect of 3D printing technology on the future fashion design and manufacturing. Appl Mech Mater2014; 496–500: 2687–2691. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.496-500.2687.
25.
McLouthTDSeverinoJVAdamsPM, et al.The impact of print orientation and raster pattern on fracture toughness in additively manufactured ABS. Addit Manuf2017; 18: 103–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2017.09.003.
26.
SedighiIAyatollahiMRBahramiB, et al.Mechanical behavior of an additively manufactured poly-carbonate specimen: tensile, flexural and mode I fracture properties. Rapid Prototyp J2019; 26(2): 267–277. DOI: 10.1108/RPJ-03-2019-0055.
27.
BahramiBAyatollahiMRSedighiI, et al.The effect of in-plane layer orientation on mixed-mode I-II fracture behavior of 3D-printed poly-carbonate specimens. Eng Fract Mech2020; 231: 107018. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107018.
28.
SamykanoMSelvamaniSKKadirgamaK, et al.Mechanical property of FDM printed ABS: influence of printing parameters. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 102(9): 2779–2796. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-019-03313-0.
29.
CamargoJCMachadoÁRAlmeidaEC, et al.Mechanical properties of PLA-graphene filament for FDM 3D printing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 103(5): 2423–2443. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-019-03532-5.
30.
NarayanaSVenkateshB. Experimental investigation and optimization of the fused deposition modelled acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. AIP Conf Proc2019; 2200(1): 020055. DOI: 10.1063/1.5141225.
31.
BorikarGPPatilARKolekarSB. Additively manufactured lattice structures and materials: present progress and future scope. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2023; 24: 2133–2180. DOI: 10.1007/s12541-023-00848-x.
32.
LinLLiMZhouQ. Study of thermal-responsive poly-L-lactic acid/nanohydroxyapatite composite filament and its 3D printing. Polym Sci Ser A2019; 61: 855–864. DOI: 10.1134/S0965545X19080017.
33.
ChacónJMCamineroMAGarcía-PlazaE, et al.Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection. Mater Des2017; 124: 143–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.065.
34.
TanikellaNGWittbrodtBPearceJM. Tensile strength of commercial polymer materials for fused filament fabrication 3D printing. Addit Manuf2017; 15: 40–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2017.03.005.
35.
García PlazaELópezPJNTorijaMÁC, et al.Analysis of PLA geometric properties processed by FFF additive manufacturing: effects of process parameters and plate-extruder precision motion. Polymers2019; 11(10): 1581. DOI: 10.3390/polym11101581.
36.
Sung-HoonAMichaelMDanO, et al.Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J2002; 8(4): 248–257. DOI: 10.1108/13552540210441166.
37.
RayeganiFOnwuboluGC. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter prediction and optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE). Int J Adv Manuf Technol2014; 73(1): 509–519. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-014-5835-2.
SoodAKOhdarRKMahapatraSS. Experimental investigation and empirical modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement. J Adv Res2012; 3(1): 81–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2011.05.001.
40.
TymrakBMKreigerMPearceJM. Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental conditions. Mater Des2014; 58: 242–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.038.
41.
SongYLiYSongW, et al.Measurements of the mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed PLA. Mater Des2017; 123: 154–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.051.
42.
ZhangPToAC. Transversely isotropic hyperelastic-viscoplastic model for glassy polymers with application to additive manufactured photopolymers. Int J Plast2016; 80: 56–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijplas.2015.12.012.
43.
TsaiSWWuEM. A general theory of strength for anisotropic materials. J Compos Mater1971; 5(1): 58–80. DOI: 10.1177/002199837100500106.
44.
AhnSHBaekCLeeS, et al.Anisotropic tensile failure model of rapid prototyping parts-fused deposition modeling (FDM). Int J Mod Phys B2003; 17(08n09): 1510–1516. DOI: 10.1142/S0217979203019241.
45.
Ivorra-MartinezJQuiles-CarrilloLLascanoD, et al.Effect of infill parameters on mechanical properties in additive manufacturing. Dyna2020; 95(4): 412–417. DOI: 10.6036/9674.
46.
WangSMaYDengZ, et al.Effects of fused deposition modeling process parameters on tensile, dynamic mechanical properties of 3D printed polylactic acid materials. Polym Test2020; 86: 106483. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106483.
47.
YaoTYeJDengZ, et al.Tensile failure strength and separation angle of FDM 3D printing PLA material: experimental and theoretical analyses. Compos B Eng2020; 188: 107894. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107894.
48.
YeJYaoTDengZ, et al.A modified creep model of polylactic acid (PLA-max) materials with different printing angles processed by fused filament fabrication. J Appl Polym Sci2021; 138(17): 50270. DOI: 10.1002/app.50270.
49.
NaveedN. Investigate the effects of process parameters on material properties and microstructural changes of 3D-printed specimens using fused deposition modelling (FDM). Mater Technol2021; 36(5): 317–330. DOI: 10.1080/10667857.2020.1758475.
50.
BakırAAAtikRÖzerinçS. Effect of fused deposition modeling process parameters on the mechanical properties of recycled polyethylene terephthalate parts. J Appl Polym Sci2021; 138(3): 49709.
51.
Cerda-AvilaSNMedellín-CastilloHILimT. An experimental methodology to analyse the structural behaviour of FDM parts with variable process parameters. Rapid Prototyp J2020; 26: 1615–1625. DOI: 10.1108/RPJ-12-2019-0312.
52.
KanyantaVIvankovicA. Mechanical characterisation of polyurethane elastomer for biomedical applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2010; 3(1): 51–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2009.03.005.
53.
Haghshenas-JaryaniMManvarMWijesundaraMB. Torque characterization of a novel pneumatic soft-and-rigid hybrid actuator. In: Dynamic systems and control conference, Tysons, Virginia, 11–13 October 2017. DOI: 10.1115/DSCC2017-5201.
54.
MarcheseADKatzschmannRKRusD. A recipe for soft fluidic elastomer robots. Soft Robot2015; 2(1): 7–25. DOI: 10.1089/soro.2014.0022.
55.
OgdenRW. Large deformation isotropic elasticity–on the correlation of theory and experiment for incompressible rubberlike solids. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci1972; 326(1567): 565–584. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1972.0026.
56.
MartinsPALSNatal JorgeRMFerreiraAJM. A comparative study of several material models for prediction of hyperelastic properties: application to silicone-rubber and soft tissues. Strain2006; 42(3): 135–147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1305.2006.00257.x.
57.
ReverteJMCamineroMAChacónJM, et al.Mechanical and geometric performance of PLA-based polymer composites processed by the fused filament fabrication additive manufacturing technique. Materials2020; 13(8): 1924. DOI: 10.3390/ma13081924.
58.
DearDJP. A study of polymer fracture surface features and their relationship to toughness. J Mater Sci1999; 34(20): 4897–4907. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004726702286.
59.
RugsajRSuvanjumratC. Study of mechanical properties of 3d printed material for non-pneumatic tire spoke. Key Eng Mater2021; 880: 97–102. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.880.97.
60.
MuhammadSJarPY. Determining stress–strain relationship for necking in polymers based on macro deformation behavior. Finite Elem Anal Des2013; 70–71: 36–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.finel.2013.03.003.
