Mechanical Properties of Additively Manufactured New Polymer Blend (Polylactic Acid-Polycarbonate Urethane) with Varying Printing Layer Thickness
Source abstract
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of varying printing layer thicknesses on the mechanical properties of a new 3D-printed polymer blend made of polylactic acid (PLA) and polycarbonate urethane (PCU). The specimen was created using the fused filament fabrication process. A universal testing machine and a Shore D durometer were used to perform the compression and hardness tests, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and an optical microscope were used to examine the surface morphology and failure mode of the tested specimens. The results showed that adding PCU to PLA decreased the compressive strength and Young’s modulus of the 3D-printed polymer blend compared to 3D-printed PLA. The mechanical properties of 3D-printed specimens are also affected by the printing layer thickness. The hardness-to-elasticity ratio was also discovered to be a crucial characteristic when designing and selecting materials to enable proper load transfer. From the SEM image analysis, the cross-sectional surface area of the compression-molded specimen is smoother than that of the 3D-printed specimen, contributing to various types of failure modes for both specimens.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (40)
Show source-provided references
1. A. Cui, H. Li, D. Wang, J. Zhong, Y. Chen, and H. Lu, Global, Regional Prevalence, Incidence and Risk Factors of Knee Osteoarthritis in Population-Based Studies, EClinicalMedicine, 2020, 29–30, p 100587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.10058710.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100587 ↗
2. A. Blom, D. Warwick, and M.R. Whitehouse Eds., Apley & Solomons’s: System of Orthopaedics and Trauma (Tenth), CRC Press, Cambridge, 2018
3. P. Keeffe, New Medical Device May Eliminate Need for Some Knee Replacement Surgery. Healthline Media. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/artificial-meniscus-procedure-knee-surgery-less-painful (2019)
4. M.J. Alaia and S.J. Fischer, Meniscal Transplant Surgery. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/treatment/meniscal-transplant-surgery/ (2021)
5. F. Accadbled, J. Vial, and J. Sales de Gauzy, Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee, Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res., 2018, 104(1), p S97–S105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.02.01610.1016/j.otsr.2017.02.016 ↗
6. V. Bagaria, R. Bhansali, and P. Pawar, 3D Printing- Creating a Blueprint for the Future of Orthopedics: Current Concept Review and the Road Ahead!, J. Clin. Orthopaed. Trauma, 2018, 9(3), p 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.00710.1016/j.jcot.2018.07.007 ↗
7. A. Beckmann, Y. Heider, M. Stoffel, and B. Markert, Assessment of the Viscoelastic Mechanical Properties of Polycarbonate Urethane for Medical Devices, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2018, 82(March), p 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.01510.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.015 ↗
8. O. Okolie, I. Stachurek, B. Kandasubramanian, and J. Njuguna, 3d Printing for Hip Implant Applications: A Review, Polymers, 2020, 12(11), p 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1211268210.3390/polym12112682 ↗
9. V. DeStefano, S. Khan, and A. Tabada, Applications of PLA in Modern Medicine, Eng. Regen., 2020, 1(September), p 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engreg.2020.08.00210.1016/j.engreg.2020.08.002 ↗
10. G. Narayanan, V.N. Vernekar, E.L. Kuyinu, and C.T. Laurencin, Poly (lactic acid)-Based Biomaterials for Orthopaedic Regenerative Engineering, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 2016, 107, p 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.04.01510.1016/j.addr.2016.04.015 ↗
11. Y. Whulanza, A. Azadi, S. Supriadi, S.F. Rahman, M. Chalid, M. Irsyad, M.H. Nadhif, and P. Kreshanti, Tailoring Mechanical Properties and Degradation Rate of Maxillofacial Implant Based on Sago Starch/Polylactid Acid Blend, Heliyon, 2022, 8(1), p e08600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e0860010.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08600 ↗
12. J.J. Elsner, S. Portnoy, G. Zur, F. Guilak, A. Shterling, and E. Linder-Ganz, Design of a Free-Floating Polycarbonate-Urethane Meniscal Implant Using Finite Element Modeling and Experimental Validation, J. Biomech. Eng., 2010, 132(9), p 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.400189210.1115/1.4001892 ↗
13. R.A. Borges, D. Choudhury, and M. Zou, 3D Printed PCU/UHMWPE Polymeric Blend for Artificial Knee Meniscus, Tribol. Int., 2018, 122, p 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2018.01.06510.1016/j.triboint.2018.01.065 ↗
14. S.E. Majd, R. Kuijer, T.A. Schmidt, and P.K. Sharma, Role of Hydrophobicity on the Adsorption of Synovial Fluid Proteins and Biolubrication of Polycarbonate Urethanes: Materials for Permanent Meniscus Implants, Mater. Des., 2015, 83, p 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.07510.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.075 ↗
15. N. Martelli, C. Serrano, H. Van Den Brink, J. Pineau, P. Prognon, I. Borget, and S. El Batti, Advantages and Disadvantages of 3-Dimensional Printing in Surgery: A Systematic Review, Surgery (United States), 2016, 159(6), p 1485–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.12.01710.1016/j.surg.2015.12.017 ↗
16. S. Farah, D.G. Anderson, and R. Langer, Physical and Mechanical Properties of PLA, and Their Functions in Widespread Applications—A Comprehensive Review, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 2016, 107, p 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.06.01210.1016/j.addr.2016.06.012 ↗
17. S. Gabarre, A. Herrera, J. Mateo, E. Ibarz, A. Lobo-Escolar, and L. Gracia, Study of the Polycarbonate-Urethane/Metal Contact in Different Positions during Gait Cycle, BioMed. Res. Int., 2014 https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/54896810.1155/2014/548968 ↗
18. A.O. Inyang and C.L. Vaughan, Functional Characteristics and Mechanical Performance of PCU Composites for Knee Meniscus Replacement, Materials, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3390/MA1308188610.3390/MA13081886 ↗
19. A.C.T. Vrancken, P. Buma, and T.G. Van Tienen, Synthetic Meniscus Replacement: A Review, Int. Orthop., 2013, 37(2), p 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1682-710.1007/s00264-012-1682-7 ↗
20. A.T. Miller, D.L. Safranski, K.E. Smith, D.G. Sycks, R.E. Guldberg, and K. Gall, Fatigue of Injection Molded and 3D Printed Polycarbonate Urethane in Solution, Polymer, 2017, 108, p 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2016.11.05510.1016/j.polymer.2016.11.055 ↗
21. G. Sivakumar, J. Jackson, H. Ceylan, and S. Sundararajan, An Investigation on Ice Adhesion and Wear of Surfaces with Differential Stiffness, Wear, 2021, 476, p 203662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2021.20366210.1016/j.wear.2021.203662 ↗
22. K. Friedrich, Polymer Composites for Tribological Applications, Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res., 2018, 1(1), p 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiepr.2018.05.00110.1016/j.aiepr.2018.05.001 ↗
23. A. AbdelGaied, M. Stanley, M. Galfe, H. Berry, E. Ingham, and J. Fisher, Comparison of the Biomechanical Tensile and Compressive Properties of Decellularised and Natural Porcine Meniscus, J. Biomech., 2015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.02.04410.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.02.044 ↗
24. M.N.M. Norani, M.I.H.C. Abdullah, M.F.B. Abdollah, H. Amiruddin, F.R. Ramli, N. Tamaldin, and U.T. Malaysia, Mechanical and Tribological Properties of fff 3d-Printed Polymers: A Brief Review, J. Tribol., 2021, 29, p 11–30.
25. P. Zhang, Z. Wang, J. Li, X. Li, and L. Cheng, From Materials to Devices Using Fused Deposition Modeling: A State-of-Art Review, Nanotechnol. Rev., 2020, 9(1), p 1594–1609. https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2020-010110.1515/ntrev-2020-0101 ↗
26. S. Rahmati and E. Vahabli, Evaluation of Analytical Modeling for Improvement of Surface Roughness of FDM Test Part Using Measurement Results, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2015, 79(5–8), p 823–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-6879-710.1007/s00170-015-6879-7 ↗
27. C.R. Martins and M.A. De Paoli, Antistatic Thermoplastic Blend of Polyaniline and Polystyrene Prepared in a Double-Screw Extruder, Eur. Polymer J., 2005, 41(12), p 2867–2873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2005.06.01610.1016/j.eurpolymj.2005.06.016 ↗
28. ASTM D695–15. Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics. ASTM International, 2016, p 1–8.
29. ASTM D2240–15. Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Durometer Hardness. ASTM International, 2021, p 1–13.
30. S.C. Walpole, D. Prieto-Merino, P. Edwards, J. Cleland, G. Stevens, and I. Roberts, The Weight of Nations: An Estimation of Adult Human Biomass, BMC Public Health, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-43910.1186/1471-2458-12-439 ↗
31. H.D.T.F. Abbas, F.M. Othman, and H.B. Ali, Influence of Layer Thickness on Compression Property of 3D-Printed PLA, Al-Muhandis J., 2017, 154, p 41–48.
32. U.K.U. Zaman, E. Boesch, A. Siadat, M. Rivette, and A.A. Baqai, Impact of fused deposition modeling (FDM) process parameters on strength of built parts using Taguchi’s design of experiments, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2019, 101, p 1215–1226.10.1007/s00170-018-3014-6 ↗
33. S.A.R. Hashmi, S. Neogi, A. Pandey, and N. Chand, Sliding Wear of PP/UHMWPE Blends: Effect of Blend Composition, Wear, 2001, 247(1), p 9–14.10.1016/S0043-1648(00)00513-5 ↗
34. V. Chandran, J. Kalman, K. Fayazbakhsh, and H. Bougherara, A Comparative Study of the Tensile Properties of Compression Molded and 3D Printed PLA Specimens in Dry and Water Saturated Conditions, J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 2021, 35, p 1977–1985.10.1007/s12206-021-0415-5 ↗
35. N. Narlıoğlu, Comparison of Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed and Compression-Molded Wood-Polylactic Acid (PLA) Composites, BioResources, 2022, 17(2), p 3291.10.15376/biores.17.2.3291-3302 ↗
36. S. Yu, Y.H. Hwang, J.Y. Hwang, and S.H. Hong, Analytical Study on the 3D-Printed Structure and Mechanical Properties of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced PLA Composites Using x-ray Microscopy, Compos. Sci. Technol., 2019, 175, p 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.03.00510.1016/j.compscitech.2019.03.005 ↗
37. A. Talaat, A. Emad, A. Tarek, M. Masbouba, A. Essam, and M. Kohail, Factors Affecting the Results of Concrete Compression Testing: A Review, Ain Shams Eng. J., 2021, 12(1), p 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.01510.1016/j.asej.2020.07.015 ↗
38. K.I. Ismail, T.C. Yap, and R. Ahmed, 3D-Printed Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites by Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM): Fiber Length and Fiber Implementation Techniques, Polymers, 2022, 14(21), p 4659. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1421465910.3390/polym14214659 ↗
39. M.S. Masoudian, D.W. Airey and A. El-Zein, Experimental Investigations on the Effect of CO2 on Mechanics of Coal, Int. J. Coal Geol., 2014, 128–129, p 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2014.04.00110.1016/j.coal.2014.04.001 ↗
40. R.K.F. Lam, M. Orozco, E. Mendieta, B. Hunter, and J. Seiter (2020). Compressive Mechanical Properties of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printed Thermoplastics. In 2020 St. Lawrence Section Meeting.10.18260/1-2-1125.1137.1139-33893 ↗