Printing Parameters of Fused Filament Fabrication Affect Key Properties of Four-Dimensional Printed Shape-Memory Polymers
Source abstract
Abstract
Extrusion-based (fused filament fabrication) three-dimensional (3D) printing of shape-memory polymers (SMPs) has the potential to rapidly produce highly customized smart-material parts. Yet, the effects of printing parameters on the shape-memory properties of printed SMPs remain poorly understood. To study the extent to which the 3D printing process affects the shape-memory properties of a printed SMP part, here temperature, extrusion rate multiplier, and fiber orientation were systematically varied, and their effect on shape-memory fixing and recovery ratios was evaluated. Fiber orientation, as determined by print path relative to the direction(s) of loading during shape-memory programming, was found to significantly impact the fixing ratio and the recovery ratio. Temperature and multiplier had little effect on either fixing ratio or recovery ratio. To facilitate the use of printed SMP parts in biomedical applications, a cell viability assay was performed on 3D-printed samples prepared using varied temperature and multiplier. Reduction in multiplier was found to increase cell viability. The results indicate that fiber orientation can critically impact the shape-memory functionality of 3D-printed SMP parts, and that multiplier can affect cytocompatibility of those parts. Thus, researchers and manufacturers employing SMPs in 3D-printed parts and devices could achieve improved part functionality if print paths are designed to align fiber direction with the axis(es) in which strain will be programmed and recovered and if the multiplier is optimized in biomedical applications in which a part will contact cells.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Polymer composites and self-healing · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Advanced Materials and Mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Syracuse Biomaterials Innovation Facility, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
BioInspired Syracuse: Institute for Material and Living Systems, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
Department of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering, and Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.06.01610.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.06.016 ↗
2. Brasch ME, , Id GP, , Gulvady AC, et al. Nuclear position relative to the Golgi body and nuclear orientation are differentially responsive indicators of cell polarized motility. PLoS One, 2019; 1–19.
3. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.100673210.1371/journal.pcbi.1006732 ↗
4. 10.1002/adhm.20130069210.1002/adhm.201300692 ↗
5. 10.1002/adfm.20150343410.1002/adfm.201503434 ↗
6. 10.1021/acsami.6b0690010.1021/acsami.6b06900 ↗
7. 10.1007/s10856-017-5962-z10.1007/s10856-017-5962-z ↗
8. 10.1002/jbm.a.3455610.1002/jbm.a.34556 ↗
9. 10.1002/marc.20160062810.1002/marc.201600628 ↗
10. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b0007410.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074 ↗
11. 10.1038/srep3111010.1038/srep31110 ↗
12. 10.1126/sciadv.160289010.1126/sciadv.1602890 ↗
13. 10.1126/science.106610210.1126/science.1066102 ↗
14. 10.1002/adv.2209110.1002/adv.22091 ↗
15. 10.1002/jbm.a.3550010.1002/jbm.a.35500 ↗
16. 10.1002/jbm.a.3019310.1002/jbm.a.30193 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.11.01710.1016/j.actbio.2008.11.017 ↗
18. 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00362-910.1016/S0142-9612(02)00362-9 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.cej.2019.02.08510.1016/j.cej.2019.02.085 ↗
20. Tibbits S. 4D printing: Multi-material shape change. Archit Des, 2014; 84:116–121.
21. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.06810.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.068 ↗
22. 10.1089/3dp.2015.003910.1089/3dp.2015.0039 ↗
23. 10.1039/c3tb20810a10.1039/c3tb20810a ↗
24. 10.1038/nmat105910.1038/nmat1059 ↗
25. 10.1080/1042691070123285710.1080/10426910701232857 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.03110.1016/j.actbio.2018.11.031 ↗
27. Alsop T. “Most used 3D printing technologies 2020.” Statista (2020).
28. Davis KA, , Luo X, , Mather PT, et al. Shape memory polymers for active cell culture. J Vis Exp, 2011; 2–6.
29. 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.06.04310.1016/j.actbio.2013.06.043 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.06410.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.10.064 ↗
31. 10.1108/RPJ-03-2017-004310.1108/RPJ-03-2017-0043 ↗
32. 10.1007/s00170-015-7843-210.1007/s00170-015-7843-2 ↗
33. 10.1108/RPJ-08-2017-015710.1108/RPJ-08-2017-0157 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.03.05010.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.03.050 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.08.06910.1016/j.matdes.2017.08.069 ↗
36. Rousseau IA. Challenges of shape memory polymers: A review of the progress toward overcoming SMP' s limitations. Epub ahead of print 2008. DOI: 10.1002/pen.10.1002/pen.21213 ↗
37. 10.1146/annurev-matsci-082908-14541910.1146/annurev-matsci-082908-145419 ↗
38. 10.1177/1045389X940050060510.1177/1045389X9400500605 ↗
39. 10.1016/S1526-6125(04)70071-710.1016/S1526-6125(04)70071-7 ↗
40. Li L. (2002). Analysis and fabrication of FDM prototypes with locally controlled properties (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary Calgary AB. DOI:10.11575/PRISM/21634.
41. 10.1115/1.400714010.1115/1.4007140 ↗
42. Gordeev EG, , Galushko AS, , Ananikov VP. Improvement of quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition modeling. PloS one 13.6 2018:e0198370.
43. 10.1039/b311214d10.1039/b311214d ↗
44. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b0009410.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00094 ↗
45. 10.1088/1361-665X/aa95ec10.1088/1361-665X/aa95ec ↗