Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 18, 2016

Bioinspired engineering polymers by voxel-based 3D-printing

Theresa Swetly, Jürgen Stampfl, Gero Kempf, Rainer-Michael Hucke, Marcus Willing and Marina Warkentin
From the journal BioNanoMaterials

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) has become an important tool in the product development process as it offers the possibility to produce parts of good geometrical quality within a short period of time, allowing geometrical validations and the visualisation of ideas. Yet the application of AM is often limited due to the poor mechanical properties of AM parts. In the automotive sector for example, there is a high demand for tough AM parts which have an impact strength comparable to industrially moulded thermoplasts. This paper explores the possibility to increase the impact strength of AM parts by combining a stiff, hard and brittle component (VeroWhite Plus in this instance) with a soft, elastomer-like component (TangoBlack Plus) and arranging these on a micro-scale level in form of alternating, chess-pattern voxels. While one material was responsible for maintaining a sufficient stiffness and strength of the resulting composite structure, the other material acted as an obstacle for crack propagation. Varying the edge length of the voxels, it was possible to investigate the influence of the microscopic voxel geometry on the part’s macroscopic impact strength. It was shown that the Charpy impact strength could be raised by a factor of eight (from 10.9 kJ/m2 to values between 80 kJ/m2 and 86.1 kJ/m2) compared to the single material. Above a certain voxel edge length the impact strength decreases again. The critical voxel edge length at which this decrease begins was determined. However, the increase in impact strength is accompanied by a decrease in the glass transition temperature.

  1. Author’s statement

  2. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  3. Materials and methods

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: The research related to human use has been complied with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies and in accordance the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.

References

1. Campbell I, Bourell D, Gibson I. Additive manufacturing: rapid prototyping comes of age. Rapid Prototyp J 2012;18:255–258. Search in Google Scholar

2. Pham DT, Gault RS. A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1998;38:1257–87. Search in Google Scholar

3. Kulkarni P, Marsan A, Dutta D. A review of process planning techniques in layered manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp J 2000;6:18–35. Search in Google Scholar

4. Liu H-C. Near net shape forming of advanced structural ceramic devices. PhD Thesis 2004;68. Search in Google Scholar

5. Zhong W, Li F, Zhang Z, Song L, Li Z. Short fiber reinforced composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater Sci Eng A 2001;301:125–30. Search in Google Scholar

6. Chartoff R, Flach L, Weissmann P, 1993. An experimental study of the parameters affecting curl in parts created using stereolithography. In: Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. USA. Search in Google Scholar

7. Croccolo D, De Agostinis M, Olmi G. Experimental characterization and analytical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of fused deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30. Comput Mater Sci 2013;79:506–18. Search in Google Scholar

8. Goodridge RD, Tuck CJ, Hague RJ. Laser sintering of polyamides and other polymers. Prog Mater Sci 2012;57:229–67. Search in Google Scholar

9. Kruth J-P, Mercelis P, Van Vaerenbergh J, Froyen L, Ruppel ME. Binding mechanisms in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyp J 2005;11:26–36. Search in Google Scholar

10. Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS. Improving dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modelling processed part using grey Taguchi method. Mater Des 2009;30:4243–52. Search in Google Scholar

11. Zarringhalam H, Hopkinson N, Kamperman NF, de Vlieger, JJ. Effects of processing on microstructure and properties of SLS Nylon 12. Mater Sci Eng A 2006;435–6:172–80. Search in Google Scholar

12. Swetly T, Stampfl J, Kempf G, Hucke RM. Elastic properties of additive manufacturing materials for automotive applications. In: Drstvensek I, editor. International conference on additive technologies. Vienna, 2014a: pp. 166–73. Search in Google Scholar

13. Swetly T, Stampfl J, Kempf G, Hucke RM. Capabilities of additive manufacturing technologies (AMT) in the validation of the automotive cockpit. In: RTejournal – Forum Für Rapid Technologie, 2014b: pp. 11/3957. Search in Google Scholar

14. Swetly T, Stampfl J, Kempf G, Hucke RM. Capabilities of additive manufacturing technologies (AMT) in the validation at BMW. In: Rapid.Tech Anwendertagung Für Neue Technologien. Messe Erfurt, 2014c. Search in Google Scholar

15. DIN EN ISO 179-1: Kunststoffe – Bestimmung der Schlageigenschaften – Teil 1: Nicht-Instrumentierte Schlagzähigkeitsprüfung, n.d. Search in Google Scholar

16. Barthelat F. Biomimetics for next generation materials. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Math Phys Eng Sci 2007;365:2907–19. Search in Google Scholar

17. Kolednik O, Predan J, Fischer FD, Fratzl P. Bioinspired design criteria for damage-resistant materials with periodically varying microstructure. Adv Funct Mater 2011;21:3634–41. Search in Google Scholar

18. Ruppel ME, Miller LM, Burr DB. The effect of the microscopic and nanoscale structure on bone fragility. Osteoporos Int 2008;19:1251–65. Search in Google Scholar

19. Wang R, Gupta HS. Deformation and fracture mechanisms of bone and nacre. Annu Rev Mater Res 2011;41:41–73. Search in Google Scholar

20. Bechtle S, Fett T, Rizzi G, Habelitz S, Klocke A, Schneider GA. Crack arrest within teeth at the dentinoenamel junction caused by elastic modulus mismatch. Biomaterials 2010;31:4238–47. Search in Google Scholar

21. Gronau G, Krishnaji ST, Kinahan ME, Giesa T, Wong JY, Kaplan DL, et al. A review of combined experimental and computational procedures for assessing biopolymer structure – process – property relationships. Biomaterials 2012;33:8240–55. Search in Google Scholar

22. Qin Z, Buehler MJ. Cooperativity governs the size and structure of biological interfaces. J Biomech 2012;45:2778–83. Search in Google Scholar

23. Studart AR. Towards high-performance bioinspired composites. Adv Mater 2012;24:5024–44. Search in Google Scholar

24. Yang W, Sherman VR, Gludovatz B, Mackey M, Zimmermann EA, Chang EH, et al. Protective role of arapaima gigas fish scales: structure and mechanical behavior. Acta Biomater 2014;10:3599–614. Search in Google Scholar

25. Wang DL, Lau J, Soane NV, Rosario MJ, Boyce PM. Mechanical Behavior of Co-Continuous Polymer Composites. In: Proulx T, editor. Experimental and applied mechanics. Vol 6, Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. New York: Springer, 2011: pp. 801–4. Search in Google Scholar

26. Sen D, Buehler MJ. Atomistically-informed mesoscale model of deformation and failure of bioinspired hierarchical silica nanocomposites. Int J Appl Mech 2010;02:699–717. Search in Google Scholar

27. Sen D, Buehler MJ. Structural hierarchies define toughness and defect-tolerance despite simple and mechanically inferior brittle building blocks. Sci Rep 2011;1:35. Search in Google Scholar

28. Dimas LS, Bratzel GH, Eylon I, Buehler MJ. Tough composites inspired by mineralized natural materials: computation, 3D printing, and testing. Adv Funct Mater 2013;23:4629–38. Search in Google Scholar

29. Fratzl P, Gupta HS, Fischer FD, Kolednik O. Hindered crack propagation in materials with periodically varying Young’s modulus – Lessons from biological materials. Adv Mater 2007;19:2657–61. Search in Google Scholar

30. DIN EN ISO 53504: Prüfung von Kautschuk und Elastomeren – Bestimmung von Reißfestigkeit, Zugfestigkeit, Bruchdehnung und Spannungswert im zugversuch, n.d. Search in Google Scholar

31. Rodrigues SA Jr, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Flexural strength and Weibull analysis of a microhybrid and a nanofill composite evaluated by 3- and 4-point bending tests. Dent Mater 2008;24: 426–31. Search in Google Scholar

32. Esteban D, Bonilla MY. Fracture toughness of nine flowable resin composites. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:261–7. Search in Google Scholar

33. Dimas LS, Buehler MJ. Tough and stiff composites with simple building blocks. J Mater Res 2013;28:1295–303. Search in Google Scholar

34. Swetly T. Capabilites of the application of Additive Manufacturing in the validation of the automotive instrument panel and centre console. Doctoral thesis. Vienna University of Technology 2016. Search in Google Scholar

35. Warkentin M. Beeinflussung von Materialeigenschaften 3D-gedruckter Bauteile durch gezielte Kombination von Materialien unterschiedlicher Eigenschaften. Bachelor Thesis. University of Applied Sciences Landshut 2015. Search in Google Scholar

36. Willing M. Parametrische Steuerung von Materialeigenschaften additiv produzierter Strukturbauteile. Diploma Thesis. University of Technology Dresden 2014. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2015-12-11
Accepted: 2016-5-30
Published Online: 2016-7-18
Published in Print: 2016-9-1

©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston