scholarly journals 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

Author(s):  
Nogol Nazemzadeh ◽  
Anahita Ahmadi Soufivand ◽  
Nabiollah Abolfathi
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nogol Nazemzadeh ◽  
Anahita Ahmadi Soufivand ◽  
Nabiollah Abolfathi

Abstract The advent of the Three-Dimensional (3D) printing technique, as an Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology, made the manufacture of complex porous scaffolds plausible in the tissue engineering field. In Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 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 (DCB) and Singe Lap Shear (SLS) 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.


Author(s):  
Marco Alfano ◽  
Franco Furgiuele ◽  
A. Leonardi ◽  
Carmine Maletta ◽  
Glaucio H. Paulino

Author(s):  
Shreya Parmar ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
Bill (W. R.) Tyson ◽  
Su Xu

Fracture propagation toughness is important to pipeline steels. In this study, the effect of non-singular T-stress (a measure of constraint) on crack growth resistance curves (R-curves) and crack tip opening angle (CTOA) was investigated using modified boundary layer (MBL) models of pipeline steels. Two sets of steel types: 1) TH (a typical high strength steel) and 2) C4 (X100 steel) were used in this work. Surface-based cohesive zone models with four sets of bilinear traction-separation (TS) laws were used for TH steel. The models of C4 steel were computed using element-based cohesive zone modeling with one bilinear TS law. All finite element simulations were conducted using the finite element (FE) program ABAQUS. It was assumed in these simulations that there was no effect of T-stress on the TS laws per se. With this assumption, it was found that the T-stress does not have a significant effect on the CTOA for the two materials studied.


2018 ◽  
Vol 183 ◽  
pp. 568-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Höwer ◽  
Bradley A. Lerch ◽  
Brett A. Bednarcyk ◽  
Evan J. Pineda ◽  
Stefanie Reese ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 651-653 ◽  
pp. 993-999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuncay Yalcinkaya ◽  
Alan Cocks

This paper addresses a physics based derivation of mode-I and mode-II traction separation relations in the context of cohesive zone modeling of ductile fracture of metallic materials. The formulation is based on the growth of an array of pores idealized as cylinders which are considered as therepresentative volume elements. An upper bound solution is applied for the deformation of the representative volume element and different traction-separation relations are obtained through different assumptions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Jakub Korta ◽  
Andrzej Młyniec ◽  
Paweł Zdziebko ◽  
Tadeusz Uhl

Author(s):  
Tirthankar Bhattacharjee ◽  
Manish Barlingay ◽  
Hummad Tasneem ◽  
Esra Roan ◽  
Kumar Vemaganti

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document