Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 9;15(12):4112.
doi: 10.3390/ma15124112.

Interlayer Bond Strength Testing in 3D-Printed Mineral Materials for Construction Applications

Izabela Hager  1 , Marcin Maroszek  2 , Katarzyna Mróz  1 , Rafał Kęsek  1 , Marek Hebda  3 , Leonid Dvorkin  4 , Vitaliy Marchuk  4
Affiliations

Interlayer Bond Strength Testing in 3D-Printed Mineral Materials for Construction Applications

Izabela Hager et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

There are no standards for testing the properties of 3D-printed materials; hence, the need to develop guidelines for implementing this type of experiment is necessary. The work concerns the development of a research methodology for interlayer bond strength evaluation in 3D-printed mineral materials. In additive manufactured construction elements, the bond strength is a significant factor as it determines the load-bearing capacity of the entire structural element. After we completed a literature review, the following three test methods were selected for consideration: direct tensile, splitting, and shear tests. The paper compares the testing procedure, results, and sample failure modes. The splitting test was found to be the most effective for assessing layer adhesion, by giving the lowest scatter of results while being an easy test to carry out.

Keywords: 3D printing; additive manufacturing; building materials; interlayer bond strength.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 7
Figure 7
Direct tensile strength–interlayer bond strength test, method A: (a) testing stand for direct tensile test, (b) sample with steel casts, and (c) the test scheme.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Splitting test–interlayer bond strength test, method B: (a) testing setup for splitting test, (b) sample during the test, and (c) the test scheme.
Figure 1
Figure 1
The geometry of printouts and the optimum interlayer bond: (a) with round edge, (b) with large coves, (c) reduced curvature of edge, (d) rectangular cross-section.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schemes of strength test configurations following the direction of printing: (a) perpendicular to the layer–interface plane, (b) cross-section, (c) side.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Schemes of strength test for 3D prints: (a) direct tensile test, (b) compressive strength test, (c) splitting test, and (d) three-point bending test.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Interlayer bond test methods: (a) bending test, (b) compression test, (c) tensile test, (d) splitting tensile test, and (e) shear test.
Figure 5
Figure 5
3D-printed element (a) before cutting into samples; (b) four layers samples 40 × 50 × 45 mm; (c) cross-section of the contact zone between the layers.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Compression test of 3D-printed materials: (a) testing stand for a compression test, (b) sample on the test bench under loading, and (c) the test scheme.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Direct shear strength test–interlayer bond strength test, method C: (a) testing stand for shear strength test, (b) sample during the test, and (c) the test scheme.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Representative example of samples after the compressive strength test and the mode of rupture of samples, from the right: C1, C2, and C3.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Stress evolution—direct tensile strength/interlayer bond strength (method A).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Samples after the direct tensile strength test and the mode of rupture of samples T1, T2, and T3.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Stress evolution—splitting tensile strength/interlayer bond strength (method B).
Figure 14
Figure 14
The failure mode of the samples after the splitting test.
Figure 15
Figure 15
Stress evolution—shear strength/interlayer bond strength (method C).
Figure 16
Figure 16
The failure mode of samples after the shear strength test.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Buswell R.A., Soar R.C., Gibb A.G.F., Thorpe A. Freeform Construction: Mega-scale Rapid Manufacturing for construction. Autom. Constr. 2007;16:224–231. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2006.05.002. - DOI
    1. Du Plessis A., Babafemi A.J., Paul S.C., Panda B., Tran J.P., Broeckhoven C. Biomimicry for 3D concrete printing: A review and perspective. Addit. Manuf. 2021;38:1823. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101823. - DOI
    1. Weng Y., Li M., Zhang D., Tan M.J., Qian S. Investigation of interlayer adhesion of 3D printable cementitious material from the aspect of printing process. Cem. Concr. Res. 2021;143:106386. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106386. - DOI
    1. Nerella V.N., Krause M., Näther M., Mechtcherine V. Studying printability of fresh concrete for formwork free Concrete on-site 3D Printing technology (CONPrint3D); Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Rheology of Building Materials; Regensburg, Germany. 2–3 March 2016.
    1. Ilcan H., Sahin O., Kul A., Yildirim G., Sahmaran M. Rheological properties and compressive strength of construction and demolition waste-based geopolymer mortars for 3D-Printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022;328:127114. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127114. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources