Table 3.
Research on Continuous Fiber Reinforcement.
| Authors | Materials | Methods | Dimensions & Testing Standards | Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | Addition | Tensile | Flexural | Compressive | |||
| Li et al. (2016) [57] | PLA | Carbon fiber |
Treatment with methylene dichloride solution for both PLA and carbon fiber (Modified CCFR) |
Not Standardized |
Not Standardized |
- | UTS: 91 MPa, 13.75% higher than the material with CCFR (continuous carbon fiber reinforcement), and 225% higher than pure PLA. FS: 156 MPa, 164% higher than the material with CCFR, and 194% higher than pure PLA. |
| Matsuzaki et al. (2016) [63] | PLA | Carbon and Jute fiber | Vol fraction of 6.6% and 6.1% for carbon and jute, respectively | JIS K 7162 for jute. Carbon not standardized |
- | - | Carbon > Jute UTS and modulus carbon-reinforced are 185.2 ± 24.6 MPa and 19.5 ± 2.08 GPa, respectively, which are 435% and 599% higher than those of the pure PLA for UTS and modulus, respectively. Failure mode was brittle. |
| Tian et al. (2016) [60] | PLA | Carbon fiber |
1000 fibers in a bundle, variation of printing parameters | - | ISO 14125 | - | The strength and modulus increased with increasing extrusion temperature; the maximum strength and modulus were 155 MPa and 8.6 GPa, respectively, at 240 °C. The strength and modulus decreased with increased layer thickness and hatch spacing. The printing speed did not have a significant effect on strength and modulus. |
| Li et al. (2019) [64] | PLA | Carbon fiber |
Variation of fibers content of 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15 wt% | National Standard (China) | - | - | UTS increased with increasing fiber content; maximum UTS: 106.3 MPa, 178% higher than pure PLA, at 15 wt% fiber content. |
| Le Duigou et al. (2019) [61] | PLA | Flax fiber | Filament diameter 482 ± 30 μm. Raster angle of 0° and 90° |
ISO 527 | - | - | 0° raster angle and 30 vol% fibers had the highest UTS: 253.7 ± 15 MPa, improved by 4.5× in terms of strength and 7× in terms of stiffness compared to pure PLA. |
| Mangat et al. (2018) [65] | PLA | Silk and Sheep Wool | Chemical treatment for silk and sheep wool, final diameter ~11μm. Variations of printing parameters, and fibers insertion sequence |
- | ASTM D790 | - | FS: 24.58 MPa, using silk at 100% infill, 0°/90° raster angle, and 4 laminates; 52% lower than pure PLA. |
| Heidari-Rarani et al. (2019) [59] | PLA | Carbon fiber |
Carbon fiber diameter 7μm. Chemical treatment for carbon fiber and extruded, the final diameter of the fiber is 1 mm |
ASTM D638; ASTM D3039 |
ASTM D790 | - | UTS and modulus increased by 36% and 208%, compared to pure PLA; Failure strain decreased by 62%. FS and modulus increased by 109% and 367% compared to pure PLA. |
| Naranjo-Lozada et al. (2019) [66] | Nylon | Carbon fiber |
Variation of volume fraction of fiber and fiber placement arrangement |
ASTM D638 | - | - | UTS: 304.3 MPa at 54 vol% fiber which was 25× higher than pure nylon and reached an elastic modulus of 23 GPa. The wider arrangement showed slightly better performance than the thinner one. |
| Dickson et al. (2017) [62] | Nylon | Carbon, Glass, and Kevlar fiber |
Variation of raster pattern (Concentric and Isotropic); Fiber bundle diameter: 8 μm for carbon, 12 μm for kevlar, and 10 μm for glass |
ASTM D3039 | ASTM D790 | - | Carbon > Glass > Kevlar The isotropic pattern was better than the concentric pattern. UTS: 216 MPa with carbon fiber, 254% higher than pure nylon. The failure mode was brittle. FS: 250.23 MPa with carbon fiber, 496% higher than pure nylon. As the fiber volume increased, both tensile and flexural strengths also increased. |