4.8 Article

Moisture sensitivity and compressive performance of 3D-printed cellulose-biopolyester foam lattices

期刊

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2021.101918

关键词

Additive manufacturing; Nanocellulose; Polyester; Foam; Direct-write assembly

资金

  1. New Zealand National Science Challenge: Science for Technological Innovation - Kia kotahi mai - Te Ao Putaiao me Te Ao Hangarau

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Foam-like polyester composite materials were 3D-printed from a thermoset paste formulation, with the compressive performance of these lattice structures investigated under different humidity conditions and water immersion. Addition of 5 wt% coconut oil to the formulation prior to printing was found to decrease stiffness under dry conditions while increasing compressive strength after water immersion.
Biobased, foam-like polyester composite materials were 3D-printed from a thermoset paste formulation. This paste formulation was composed of sebacic acid, glycerol, citric acid, and cellulose nanocrystals in water and ethanol with potassium chloride as a salt porogen. Thin walls and lattices were 3D-printed with geometry selected to facilitate post-printing processes such as water removal during polyester curing and the post-curing removal of the salt porogen. The compressive performance of these moisture-sensitive lattice structures was investigated after conditioning at different humidity levels and by water immersion. Finite element analysis was used to simulate the compressive performance of these porous lattice structures using a crushable foam material model. Addition of plant triglyceride oils from sunflower and coconut were trialled to modify the compressive performance and moisture sensitivity. Addition of 5 wt% coconut oil to the formulation prior to 3D-printing was found to lower the cured material's stiffness under dry conditions while increasing the compressive plateau strength of the lattice structures after water immersion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据