Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computing the bond strength of 3D printed polylactic acid scaffolds in mode I and II using experimental tests, finite element method and cohesive zone modeling

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The advent of the Three-Dimensional (3D) printing technique, as an Additive Manufacturing technology, made the manufacture of complex porous scaffolds plausible in the tissue engineering field. In Fused Deposition Modeling based 3D printing, layer upon layer deposition of filaments produces voids and gaps, leading to a crack generation and loose bonding. Cohesive zone model (CZM), a fracture mechanics concept, is a promising theory to study the layers bond behavior. In this paper, a combination of experimental and computational investigations was proposed to obtain bond parameters and evaluate the effect of porosity and microstructure on these parameters. First, we considered two different designs for scaffolds beside a non-porous Bulk design. Then, we performed Double cantilever beam and Singe Lap Shear tests on the 3D printed samples for Modes I and II, respectively. Afterward, we developed the numerical simulations of these tests using the Finite element method (FEM) to obtain CZM bond parameters. Results demonstrate that the initial stiffness and cohesive strength were pretty similar for all designs in Mode I. However, the cohesive energy for the Bulk sample was approximately four times of porous samples. Furthermore, for Mode II, the initial stiffness and cohesive energy of the Bulk model were five and four times of porous designs while their cohesive strengths were almost the same. Also, using cohesive parameters was significantly enhanced the accuracy of FEM predictions in comparison with fully bonded assumption. It can be concluded that for the numerical analysis of 3D printed parts mechanical behavior, it is necessary to obtain and suppose the cohesive parameters. The present work illustrates the effectiveness of CZM and FEM combination to obtain the layer adhesive parameters of the 3D printed scaffold.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Yes, the data and material are available.

Code availability

Yes, the code is available.

References

  1. Soufivand AA et al (2020) Prediction of mechanical behavior of 3D bioprinted tissue-engineered scaffolds using finite element method (FEM) analysis. Addit Manuf 33:101181

    Google Scholar 

  2. Koch C, Van Hulle L, Rudolph N (2017) Investigation of mechanical anisotropy of the fused filament fabrication process via customized tool path generation. Addit Manuf 16:138–145

    Google Scholar 

  3. Standard A (2012) Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies. ASTM International F2792–12a

  4. Isakov D et al (2016) 3D printed anisotropic dielectric composite with meta-material features. Mater Des 93:423–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Soufivand AA et al (2020) The effect of 3D printing on the morphological and mechanical properties of polycaprolactone filament and scaffold. Polym Adv Technol 31(5):1038–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Naghieh S et al (2016) Numerical investigation of the mechanical properties of the additive manufactured bone scaffolds fabricated by FDM: the effect of layer penetration and post-heating. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 59:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Naghieh S et al (2016) Fused deposition modeling and fabrication of a three-dimensional model in maxillofacial reconstruction. Regen Reconstr Restor 1(3):139–144

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boccardi E et al (2015) Oxygen diffusion in marine-derived tissue engineering scaffolds. J Mater Sci - Mater Med 26(6):200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sherwood JK et al (2002) A three-dimensional osteochondral composite scaffold for articular cartilage repair. Biomaterials 23(24):4739–4751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Felfel R et al (2016) In vitro degradation and mechanical properties of PLA-PCL copolymer unit cell scaffolds generated by two-photon polymerization. Biomed Mater 11(1):015011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Serra T et al (2014) Relevance of PEG in PLA-based blends for tissue engineering 3D-printed scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng C 38:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tyler B et al (2016) Polylactic acid (PLA) controlled delivery carriers for biomedical applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:163–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Senatov FS et al (2016) Mechanical properties and shape memory effect of 3D-printed PLA-based porous scaffolds. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 57:139–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tayton E et al (2014) A comparison of polymer and polymer–hydroxyapatite composite tissue engineered scaffolds for use in bone regeneration. An in vitro and in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 102(8):2613–2624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grémare A et al (2018) Characterization of printed PLA scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 106(4):887–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Martínez J et al (2013) Comparative between FEM models for FDM parts and their approach to a real mechanical behaviour. Procedia Eng 63:878–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Park S-I, Watanabe N, Rosen DW (2018) Estimating failure of material extrusion truss structures based on deposition modeling and a cohesive zone model. Mater Des 147:122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang J et al (2016) A novel approach to improve mechanical properties of parts fabricated by fused deposition modeling. Mater Des 105:152–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barenblatt GI (1962) The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Adv Appl Mech 7(1):55–129

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Dugdale DS (1960) Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids 8(2):100–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Turon A et al (2007) An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech 74(10):1665–1682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Camanho PP, Davila CG, De Moura M (2003) Numerical simulation of mixed-mode progressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater 37(16):1415–1438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schellekens J, De Borst R (1991) Numerical simulation of free edge delamination in graphite-epoxy laminates under uniaxial tension. Composite structures. Springer, pp 647–657

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Standard, A (2007) D5528–01,“Standard test method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, https://doi.org/10.1520/D5528-94A

  25. Valoroso N, Fedele R (2010) Characterization of a cohesive-zone model describing damage and de-cohesion at bonded interfaces. Sensitivity analysis and mode-I parameter identification. Int J Solids Struct 47(13):1666–1677

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Gustafson PA, Waas AM (2009) The influence of adhesive constitutive parameters in cohesive zone finite element models of adhesively bonded joints. Int J Solids Struct 46(10):2201–2215

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Maier G, Bocciarelli M, Fedele R (2005) Some innovative industrial prospects centered on inverse analyses. Parameter identification of materials and structures. Springer, pp 55–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Oh J-C, Kim H-G (2013) Inverse estimation of cohesive zone laws from experimentally measured displacements for the quasi-static mode I fracture of PMMA. Eng Fract Mech 99:118–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang J et al (2010) Viscoelastic adhesive interfacial model and experimental characterization for interfacial parameters. Mech Mater 42(5):537–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bocciarelli M, Bolzon G (2009) Indentation and imprint mapping for the identification of interface properties in film-substrate systems. Int J Fract 155(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kishore V et al (2017) Infrared preheating to improve interlayer strength of big area additive manufacturing (BAAM) components. Addit Manuf 14:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  32. Spoerk M et al (2017) Parametric optimization of intra-and inter-layer strengths in parts produced by extrusion-based additive manufacturing of poly (lactic acid). J Appl Polym Sci 134(41):45401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Seppala JE et al (2017) Weld formation during material extrusion additive manufacturing. Soft Matter 13(38):6761–6769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Liravi F, Das S, Zhou C (2015) Separation force analysis and prediction based on cohesive element model for constrained-surface Stereolithography processes. Comput Aided Des 69:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahmadi A et al (2016) Effect of manufacturing parameters on mechanical properties of 316L stainless steel parts fabricated by selective laser melting: a computational framework. Mater Des 112:328–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Spackman CC, et al. (2018) A cohesive zone model for the stamping process encountered during three-dimensional printing of fiber-reinforced soft composites. J Manuf Sci Eng. 140(1).

  37. Fonseca J et al (2019) Study of the interlaminar fracture under mode I loading on FFF printed parts. Compos Struct 214:316–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumar S, Wardle BL, Arif MF (2017) Strength and performance enhancement of bonded joints by spatial tailoring of adhesive compliance via 3D printing. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(1):884–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kovan V, Altan G, Topal ES (2017) Effect of layer thickness and print orientation on strength of 3D printed and adhesively bonded single lap joints. J Mech Sci Technol 31(5):2197–2201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Garcia R, Prabhakar P (2017) Bond interface design for single lap joints using polymeric additive manufacturing. Compos Struct 176:547–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Falck R et al (2018) AddJoining: a novel additive manufacturing approach for layered metal-polymer hybrid structures. Mater Lett 217:211–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dugbenoo E et al (2018) Enhanced bonding via additive manufacturing-enabled surface tailoring of 3D printed continuous-fiber composites. Adv Eng Mater 20(12):1800691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yeo MG, Kim GH (2012) Preparation and characterization of 3D composite scaffolds based on rapid-prototyped PCL/β-TCP struts and electrospun PCL coated with collagen and HA for bone regeneration. Chem Mater 24(5):903–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Farah S, Anderson DG, Langer R (2016) Physical and mechanical properties of PLA, and their functions in widespread applications—A comprehensive review. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 107:367–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomedical Engineering Faculty, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave, 15916, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran

    Nogol Nazemzadeh, Anahita Ahmadi Soufivand & Nabiollah Abolfathi

  2. Institute of Applied Mechanics, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg), Bavaria, Erlangen, Germany

    Anahita Ahmadi Soufivand

Authors
  1. Nogol Nazemzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anahita Ahmadi Soufivand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nabiollah Abolfathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NN: Investigation, Formal analysis, Software, Writing Original Draft, Data Curation AAS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Draft Review and Editing, Visualization, Supervision NA: Conceptualization, Resources, Project administration.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Anahita Ahmadi Soufivand or Nabiollah Abolfathi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nazemzadeh, N., Soufivand, A.A. & Abolfathi, N. Computing the bond strength of 3D printed polylactic acid scaffolds in mode I and II using experimental tests, finite element method and cohesive zone modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 118, 2651–2667 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08124-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08124-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation