Special Issue: MDA 2022

Proc IMechE Part L:

J Materials: Design and Applications
Effect of bio-inspired surface texture on the 1–17
© IMechE 2022
resistance of 3D-printed polycarbonate Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
bonded joints DOI: 10.1177/14644207221136239
journals.sagepub.com/home/pil

N Naat1 , Y Boutar1,2, S Naïmi1,3, S Mezlini1 and LFM da Silva4

Abstract
Surface preparation before adhesive bonding is crucial to improve the resistance and durability of the joint by altering the
surface properties of the adherend. The purpose of surface treatment is to clean the surface from contaminants, activate
the adherend surface and create an optimal surface structure to promote adhesion mechanisms. In that context, this
work aims to investigate the influence of substrate surface texturing on the resistance of adhesive joints. Two bio-inspired
surface textures were investigated, Fish scale (FS) and Tree frog (TF). Polycarbonate (PC) specimens with different surface
patterns were manufactured using the fused deposition modelling process. Surface morphology, such as pattern dimen-
sion (shape and depth), surface roughness (Ra), and wettability, were used to characterise the substrates. The influence of
these texture patterns on the shear strength of adhesively bonded joints was evaluated through the standardised block
shear test method ASTM D4501-01. Moreover, the shear strength of the structured joints was compared to the results
from bonding with polished surfaces (surfaces abraded with 80, 600 and 1000 grit paper), and with as-printed surfaces.
The results revealed that the FS and TF surface textures enhanced the shear strength by 242% and 283% compared to the
adhesive joints with polished surfaces. It was also shown that the variation in depth of the bio-inspired surface texture has
no significant impact on the joint strength. Failure analysis demonstrated that the fracture mode of bonded joints with
polished surfaces was the adhesive failure while mixed failure (cohesive and adhesive) characterises the as-printed, TF
and FS surfaces. Worthy results are obtained rising the effectiveness of surface texture for the PC’s bonded joints.

Graphical Abstract

This is a graphical representation of the abstract.

1
Mechanical Engineering Laboratory, National Engineering School of Monastir, Monastir University, Monastir, Tunisia
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering CVUT, Department of Steel and Timber Structures, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech
3
College of Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
4
Faculdade de Engenharia, Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Corresponding author:
N Naat, Mechanical Engineering Laboratory, National Engineering School of Monastir, Monastir University, Monastir, Tunisia.
Email: naatnidhal@yahoo.fr
2 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
Keywords
Adhesive bonding, bio-inspired surface texture, additive manufacturing, wettability, shear strength, mechanical
interlocking
Date received: 23 July 2022; accepted: 15 October 2022
Introduction
Adhesive bonding technology is increasingly used in a
wide range of industrial applications such as aerospace,
automotive and medical industries.1 It presents numerous
advantages in comparison with conventional joining
methods namely welding and mechanical fastening.
Particularly, this technic allows the joining of dissimilar
materials, uniform stress distribution, improvement of
fatigue resistance and weight reduction. Nevertheless, for
tough bonded joints, particular attention is needed to
choose the proper surface preparation and to prevent the
influence of ageing conditions.2
Several factors can affect the joint strength such as
adherends and adhesives proprieties, the surface treatment
and the geometry of substrates. Therefore, particular atten-
tion has been paid to study the influence of adherends
surface preparation, which proved to have a strong effect
on bonded joint quality.3 Surface treatment aims to clean
the surface from contaminants, activate the adherend
surface and create an optimum surface structure to trigger
all adhesion mechanisms. Thus, it is generally recognized
that surface texture can increase the contact area and
provide mechanical locking points of the adhesive,
thereby contributing to the interfacial bond resistance,
referred as the mechanical interlocking effect.2 However,
before curing, the adhesive must spread over the substrate
surface and infiltrate the texture (e.g. cavities, pores, struc-
tured texture & other surface irregularities). Therefore, suf-
ficient interfacial wetting is crucial for the formation of high
joint strength. Contrariwise, poor wetting usually takes
place within the bonding interface, which causes an
increase in stress concentration and therefore a decrease
in joint strength.4 Consequently, further research works
are required to address the correlation between surface
texture, surface wettability and bond strength.
Recently, there has been an increasing focus on func-
tional structured surfaces, which are designed to realize
the desired function of a component and its predefined
application. Since the surface structure has a great influence
on interfacial wetting and therefore joint strength, it is
highly advisable to find a specific surface texture type
with superior wettability and good resistance against deteri-
orating effect induced by excessive surface roughness.
Thus, two types of bio-inspired surface textures are condu-
cive to solving the problem of poor interfacial wetting
between the adhesive and the adherend as well as enhan-
cing the joint strength. First, super hydrophilic textures
due to different micro and nano-structures like Tree frog
toe,5,6 Fish scale7,8 and Ruellia devosiana plant.9 Second,
directional water collection textures, such as Nepenthes
alata10 and Texas horned lizard.11 The high-adhesion
wetting state of a Tree frog toe profits from its hierarchical
surface structure and super hydrophilic behaviour. The
multi-scale structure on the Fish scale plays a key role in
the super hydrophilic property and the low-adhesion
wetting. In addition, these two structured textures have rela-
tively simpler geometric shapes, as shown in Figures 1 and
2, which are easier to manufacture.
Several authors have proposed using structured textures to
enhance and control the strength of bonded joints. Different
surface textures with varied dimensions have been used to
examine their influence on joint resistance. Therefore, linear
grooves, crossed grooves and dimples have been the most
studied structured surfaces. Compared to dimpled and linear
grooved textures, the cross-grooved structure presented a con-
siderable enhancement in joint strength because of increased
contact area, ease of air escape from the texture and enhanced
mechanical locking effect.12–15 On the other hand, a few
studies have investigated the influence of hierarchical
surface textures on the resistance of bonded joints.
Biggemann et al.16 created a multi-scale texture for hydroxy-
apatite ceramics to improve the joint strength of polycaprolac-
tone and hydroxyapatite (PCL/HAp) composites. They
proved that combining mechanical, chemical and physical
adhesion mechanisms on a multi-scale surface texture could
significantly enhance joint strength. In the same way, Liu
et al.17 investigated the influence of hierarchical and micro-
structural textures on the shear strength of Al-CFRP adhe-
sively bonded joints using laser processing. They noticed
that the joint strength was governed not only by the contact
area and surface roughness but also by the different micro-
structural arrangements. Similarly, Salstela et al.18 produced
hierarchical (micro-structured + micro-random) patterns
using micro-mesh printing (for micro-structured texture) and
sandblasting (for micro-random texture) methods. They
demonstrated that the hierarchical structure increased the
shear strength by 116% compared to a smooth surface. To
date, few research works have been conducted to investigate
the influence of bio-inspired texture on joint strength. Wan
et al.19 found that superior wettability and strong interfacial
bonding between aluminium substrates and epoxy adhesive
are successfully achieved by using bio-inspired spindle micro-
structures. Nash et al.20 examined the impact of bio-inspired
waviness surface texture and material properties of the inter-
face layer on the resistance of bonded joints via finite
element simulations. They showed that the geometry and
material characteristics of the interface layer have a significant
effect on the stiffness, strength and failure mechanisms of
wavy adhesive joints. However, the work of Alfano et al.21
focused on fracture analysis in adhesively bonded double
Naat et al.
cantilever beam joints with bio-inspired 3D-printed surfaces.
The authors found that bio-inspired subsurface channels sig-
nificantly increased the total dissipated energy compared to
bulk specimens (i.e. no channels).
Various manufacturing methods such as laser, lithog-
raphy and additive manufacturing (AM) have been
employed to produce structured surface textures. The
free shape of the 3D-printed parts allows the manufactur-
ing of various simple and complex structured surfaces to
investigate the effect of surface texturing on the resistance
of bonded joints.22–25 Despite the strong development of
the AM process, the relationship between structural adhe-
sives and structured surface texturing of AM components
has not yet been fully understood. Furthermore, the intel-
ligent combination of adhesive bonding and AM technol-
ogy can be very useful for overcoming one of the major
limitations of AM (the limited bed size of AM machines),
improving the joint strength by exploiting the capacity of
the AM to tailor a suitable surface texture of a part, and
manufacturing parts with structured surfaces in one step.
This work aims to investigate the mechanical perfor-
mances of bonded AM specimens with bio-inspired
surface textures compared with traditional adhesive
bonding on abraded surfaces or with the monolithic
joint (directly printed with an AM machine). The influ-
ence of different surface textures on joint strength and
adhesion behaviour is investigated using experimental
block shear tests. Results show that the bio-inspired
surface textures greatly increased the shear strength of
bonded joints, compared with the abraded surface. Thus,
the bio-inspired structured surface enhanced the joint
resistance by mechanical interlocking at the macroscopic
scale.
Experimental details
Materials
Polycarbonate (PC) is an engineering amorphous thermo-
plastic, which is characterised by its specific features, such
Table 1. Mechanical and physical properties of polycarbonate (PC) (manufacturer’s datasheet).
Polycarbonate
Young’s modulus Tensile strength Elongation at
(MPa) (MPa) break (%)
2307 ± 60 (ASTM 62.7 ± 1.3 (ASTM 3.2 ± 0.4 (ASTM
D638) D638) D638)
Table 2. Main physical and mechanical properties of the chosen adhesive (manufacturer’s datasheet).
LOCTITE® EA M-121HP
Viscosity (cP) Glass transition Working life (min) at
at 25 °C temperature (°C) 25 °C
11,000 (mixed) 90 (ASTM E 228) 120
3
as transparency, high toughness, biocompatibility and
high-temperature resistance. Thereby, PC material is
used in optical applications, microfluidic and medical
(e.g. prosthetics, blood filters) devices. PC filament
(Raise3D Premium PC, China) was used to manufacture
all the experimental substrates. The characteristics of the
selected PC are shown in Table 1.
A two-component high-performance, brittle and bio-
compatible epoxy adhesive (LOCTITE® EA M-121HP
from Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Düsseldorf, Germany)
was chosen. Table 2 shows the technical specifications,
as given in the manufacturer’s datasheet.
Specimens preparation and surface treatment
Tree frog (Litoria caerulea) toe pads are hierarchically struc-
tured with a regular hexagonal pattern of epidermal cells
with a diameter of around 10 µm and spaced by 1 µm
wide and deep channels; each epidermal cell consists of
thousands of columnar nanopillar peg microstructures
(100–400 nm). The nanopillars have a (mostly) hexagonal
outline separated by wide and deep channels of about
100 nm (Figure 1).5, 6 On the other hand, fish (e.g.
rainbow trout) are covered with oriented scales (diameters
of 2–5 mm and height of 200 µm) and arrange into an
array. The surface of the individual scale consists of micro-
papillae with 100–300 µm in length, 30–40 µm in width and
10 µm in height oriented in the radial direction (Figure 2).7, 8
To facilitate the manufacturing of these two hierarchical
bio-inspired textures via a fused deposition modelling
(FDM) 3D printing machine, multiplier scale factors have
been used to build the geometric models of the two textures,
as shown in Figure 3 (Tree frog) and Figure 4 (Fish scale).
Solidworks software was used to design the PC adher-
ends. Once the STL files were created, they were uploaded
into ideaMaker, a 3D slicing software. Then, G-code files
were generated by using ideaMaker. Afterwards, the PC
substrates were manufactured layer by layer via a
Raise3D Pro2 printer with PC filaments in a diameter of
1.75 mm, as shown in Figure 5. The process parameters
Flexural modulus Flexural strength Glass transition
(MPa) (MPa) temperature (°C)
2477 ± 159 (ASTM 100.4 ± 2.7 (ASTM 113 (DSC, 10 °C/min)
D790) D790)
Elastic modulus Tensile strength Elongation at break
(MPa) (MPa) (%)
1490 (ISO 527-2) 40.7 (ISO 527-2) 10 (ISO 527-2)
4 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 1. (A1–A4) Surface texture of Tree frog (Litoria caerulea) toe pads. (B1–B3) Geometrical model of the ventral toe pad texture.
(dp: diameter of ventral pad, dc: diameter of polygonal epidermal cells, CH: channel, wc: channel width, NP: nanopillar, dn: diameter of
polygonal nanopillar, wn: channel width, DI: dimple, Δr: distance between dimple and nanopillar edge).5,6

Figure 2. (a) Optical and (b) scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the Fish (Rainbow trout) scales surface texture.7

of PC specimens for the FDM 3D printing machine were Table 3. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process
listed in Table 3. parameters.
Up to now, there are no standardized testing methods for Parameter Value
polymeric AM adherends. As noted in Forster’s NIST
report,26 current standards are not applicable for AM adher- Nozzle diameter 0.2 mm
ends and specific modifications are needed. Most of the Extrusion temperature 260°C
research works in the literature adopt single lap joints Bed temperature 110°C
(SLJ). For this reason, PC adherends were firstly printed Printing speed 60 mm/s
Layer height 0.1 mm
according to the standards ASTM D3163-01.
Infill density 100%
Unfortunately, the warping effects did not allow the manu-
Enable print cooling No
facturing of the specimens (Flatwise and edgewise orienta-
tions). This effect is due to shrinkage of material and
residual stress because there is a large temperature gradient D4501-01 was adopted. The specimens were printed in
between the formed parts and the surrounding environ- the edgewise orientation and then cooled to room tempera-
ment.27 Therefore, the block shear test method ASTM ture after printing.
Naat et al.
Figure 3. Geometric model of Tree frog texture (TF0.75) (all dimensions in mm).
Three test groups were established for the specimens
based on the following surface treatment:
1. Bio-inspired group: 3D-printed TF and FS specimens
with structured hierarchical surface textures were
cleaned using isopropanol.
2. As-printed group: 3D-printed specimens with
a structured surface (from the inherent FDM
manufacturing process) were cleaned using
isopropanol.
3. The abrasion treated group (according to ASTM
D2093-03): the as-printed surface was solvent
cleaned (isopropanol), then abraded with 80, 600 and
1000 grit paper for 1 min along one direction (perpen-
dicular to the loading direction), followed by further
solvent cleaning (isopropanol).
Surface characterization
The surface topography profile and roughness including
Ra, Rq and Rz of as-printed and abraded specimens were
measured using a contact type profilometer (Surtronic
S-128, Taylor Hobson, UK) according to the ISO 4287
5
standard. Three measurements were performed at differ-
ent locations, and then an average was calculated for
each surface texture. Ra was the arithmetic mean devi-
ation of the profile (µm), Rq was the root mean square
deviation of the profile (µm) and Rz was the maximum
height of the profile (µm).
The static contact angle was measured using the sessile
drop method. Thus, a drop shape analyzer DSA25
(KRÜSS, Germany) was used for measuring the water
contact angle (WCA) under atmospheric conditions using
the Young-Laplace method. The 15 μL of distilled water
was dispensed onto the surface of the substrate and the
droplet contact photograph was captured after stabilization.
For FS texture, there is one measurement position.
However, for TF texture, there are three measurement
positions (Position1: On a large hexagon, Position 2:
between three large hexagons, Position 3: between two
large hexagons). For each position of FS and TF textures,
a minimum of three measurements were performed in
each of the two directions (transversal and longitudinal).
Then, an average result was obtained for each texture.
Figure 6 shows the measurement positions on TF and
FS structured textures using the contact angle goniometer
‘KRÜSS DSA25’.
6 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
Figure 4. Geometric model of Fish scale texture (FS0.4) (all dimensions in mm).
To observe the interfacial wetting between adhesive
and substrates, cross-sections of TF and FS bonded joints
were made: firstly, the bonded specimens were cut using
a circular saw. Then, the cut sections were polished with
600 and 1000 grit papers, respectively. After, they were
cleaned with isopropanol. Finally, cross-sectional
views of TF and FS bonded joints were taken via
digital photography.
Test methods
The block shear test method ASTM D4501-01 was adopted
for shear strength testing of 3D printed PC bonded joints.
The full specimen with corresponding dimensions is
reported schematically in Figure 7.
A special mould was designed and manufactured
(Figure 8), to ensure the substrates’ alignment, overlap
length and adhesive thickness. Therefore, 3D-printed
shims made of polylactic acid were used to achieve the
desired thickness (0.2 mm) and overlap length (12.5 mm)
of the adhesive with high precision. After the surface treat-
ment, the adhesive was mixed and applied evenly to both
surfaces to be joined. Then, the bonded substrates were
cured for 48 h under a pressure of 0.1 MPa. Finally, a file
is used to remove excess adhesive from the sides of the
joints.
To clamp the specimen in place and minimize the
peeling effects that occur during SLJ shear tests, a special
fixture is required for block shear testing. Therefore, it
was necessary to develop and manufacture this fixture, as
shown in Figure 9. One half of the specimen was positioned
in the holding block of the fixture and the shearing tool con-
tains a slot to grip the other half of the specimen. Tension
was applied to the holding block of the fixture, while the
shearing tool remained static. The samples were tensile
tested in a LLOYD 20 kN testing machine. For each case
examined, at least three samples were produced. The
samples were tested under monotonic loading at room tem-
perature with a crosshead speed of 1.3 mm/min. After each
test, the maximum load was registered, and the failure
modes were recorded and visually inspected.
On the other hand, full specimens (monolithic joints)
with the same geometry as the bonded specimens, printed
as a single part (Figure 10), were also tested to compare
the adhesive’s shear strength and the interlayer shear
strength of the 3D-printed materials.
Naat et al. 7

Figure 5. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printing machine and the 3D-printed PC substrates.

Figure 6. (a) Positions of measurements and (b) Contact angle measurements on water drops via a contact angle goniometer ‘KRÜSS
DSA25’.
8 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 7. Geometric parameters of block shear test (ASTM D4501) (all dimensions in mm).

Figure 8. Preparation of block shear specimen.

Results and Discussion Rq and Rz, both height parameters. The Ra value of the
abraded sample with P1000 grit paper is the lowest,
Morphology around 260 nm. This reveals that this treatment generates
a flatter and more homogeneous surface, formed by small
Figure 11 illustrates the surface roughness profiles corre-
peaks and valleys.
sponding to as-printed and abrades surfaces. The as-printed
Figure 12 shows digital photographs of the bio-inspired
surface (Figure 11(a)) showed a regular striped pattern,
surface texture of 3D-printed PC substrates. The FS
resulting in a rough surface. The periodicity of the
surface exhibited a regular fish-scale macrostructure
contour surface is governed by the layer height, which
(Figure 12(a)). While the TF surface (Figure 12(b))
has sizes of 100 μm. In addition, the extrusion parameters
showed a regular and hierarchical hexagonal macrostruc-
and cooling conditions of the FDM 3D printing machine
ture (each large hexagon contains 24 small hexagons).
affect the feature sizes. McLouth et al.28 showed that the
Furthermore, the as-printed microstructured texture (with
texture of the lateral surfaces is a kind of micro-curvature.
an ellipsoidal shape) resulting from the intrinsic FDM
Since the material is extruded over the previous layer and
manufacturing process, also exists on the surface of
pushed outwards to form an ellipsoidal shape. On the
bio-inspired textures. On the other hand, it is observed
other hand, the abrading treatment removes the as-printed
that the morphology of 3D-printed bio-inspired surfaces
texture and forms an anisotropic stochastic texture (parallel
is in good agreement with the morphology and the size
grooves).
of the designed ones.
The following conclusions can be drawn from a com-
parison of the data reported in Table 4 and Figure 11.
The as-printed surface showed the highest roughness with
an ellipsoidal shape. For mechanical abrasion treatment,
Wettability
an increase in grain size of the grit paper causes a propor- According to wetting theories, the interfacial wetting of a
tional increase of Ra. Similar behaviour is observed for solid surface through a liquid is influenced by two main
Naat et al. 9

Figure 9. The experimental setup for block shear specimen.

Figure 10. (a) Geometric model (dimensions in mm) and (b) 3D printed full specimen.

Table 4. Surface roughness.

Treatment

Profilometry parameter As-printed P80 P600 P1000

Ra (µm) 7.39 ± 0.34 5.97 ± 0.41 0.43 ± 0.05 0.26 ± 0.04

Rq (µm) 8.84 ± 0.36 7.66 ± 0.69 0.54 ± 0.06 0.32 ± 0.04
Rz (µm) 36.15 ± 1.15 37.23 ± 6 3.12 ± 0.35 1.9 ± 0.5
10 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 11. Surface roughness profiles of polycarbonate substrates: (a) As-printed, (b) abraded with 80 grit paper and (c) abraded with
1000 grit paper.

Figure 12. Photographs of 3D-printed bio-inspired textures, (a) Fish scale, (b) Tree frog.

factors: the texture of the solid surface and the surface
energy of the solid and liquid.3 On the other hand, the
surface texturing decreases the WCA when the measured
WCA on a flat solid surface is smaller than the intrinsic
wetting threshold angle of the water (θIWT). Contrarily,
when the WCA on a flat solid surface is larger than θIWT,
the surface texturing increases WCA.29 Based on
Young’s equation,30 the WCA of 90° was identified as
θIWT. However, by considering the interphase water mol-
ecule interactions and structures, a lower θIWT of 65° was
proposed.31 In this study, only the surface texturing param-
eter has been changed.
WCA measurements were plotted in Figure 13 as a func-
tion of surface texture. All tested textures followed similar
Naat et al. 11

Figure 13. The water contact angle of 3D-printed specimens for different surface textures.

Figure 14. Typical force-displacement curves for different configurations of PC/PC joints.

trends; the increase of surface roughness increased WCA.
The WCA of the abraded surface with P1000 (smoother
surface) is larger than θIWT (65°).31 The as-printed, P80
and bio-inspired textures (rough surfaces) exhibited a
mainly hydrophobic behaviour, as measured WCA
ranged between 93.5° (FS) and 113° (TF). However,
P600 and P1000 abraded surfaces (smooth surfaces)
showed hydrophilic behaviour. Therefore, features’
shape, size and distribution on the surface have a great
influence on the surface wettability.
The increase in WCA is due to a macro and micro-
geometric barrier effect resulting from the surface textur-
ing that prevents the free spreading of the water droplet on
the substrate surface.4 The high dispersion of the WCA
measurements is due to the anisotropy of the surface tex-
tures because asymmetric drops with non-circular three-
12
Figure 15. The shear bond strength as a function of surface texture.
phase contact lines were obtained. These drops spread more
easily in one direction than in the other.32 On the other
hand, for the smoothest surface (abraded with P1000), the
roughness isotropy is increasing because the abrading
lead to the flattening of the surface asperities (very low
barrier effect). Therefore, the droplet spread more easily
and has a more uniform apparent contact angle distribution
(circular three-phase contact lines) with low dispersion.
Shear strength
The surface texture and wettability play a key role in adhe-
sion properties, which is beneficial for enhancing bonding
strength. Therefore, the influence of surface texturing on
the shear strength of bonded joints needs to be further
investigated.
Preliminary shear tests (not reported here) were per-
formed to see the influence of the depth of the FS and TF
structured textures. It was found that increasing the depth
of the bio-inspired surface texture on a macroscopic scale
does not have a significant influence on the strength of the
bonded joint. The depths that gave the maximum shear
strength were chosen. Thus, Figures 3 and 4 showed the
optimum depths of TF and FS textures, respectively.
Figure 14 illustrates the evolution of the force versus dis-
placement for different types of surface textures. The typical
curves exhibit the same trend with a similar slope. Two
regions can be identified: firstly, the load increases slightly,
and then it rises to failure. This fact depends mainly on the
behaviour at the adherend/adhesive interface. However, the
force-displacement curve for P600 treatment is different
from the others. This behaviour could be explained by the
very low transmitted load through the adhesive along the
interface because there is no mechanical interlocking, and
the physical adsorption is the lowest compared to other treat-
ments. Therefore, the load rises faster to failure and the crack
propagates faster.33
Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
The average shear strength measurements, and corre-
sponding standard deviations, for bonded joints composed
of different surface textures, are shown in Figure 15. This
graph shows that the smooth surfaces (abraded with P600
and P1000 grit paper) give the worst results. In this case,
the joint strength correlates with the wettability and the
decrease of WCA from 87° (P600) to 67.6° (P1000)
increases shear strength by 51%. Thus, the effect of phys-
ical adsorption is more significant than mechanical inter-
locking due to a very low roughness. The as-printed and
P80 textures improved the shear strength by 174% and
162% compared to the P600 specimens, respectively.
Therefore, both textures showed that the shear strength
increased with increasing surface roughness. For substrates
with bio-inspired FS and TF textures, the shear strength of
corresponding bonded joints was 21.05 and 23.59 MPa,
which was increased by 25%, and 40% compared to
as-printed specimens, respectively. As a result, the TF
pattern showed the highest joint strength compared to the
other textures.
The enhancement of joint strength after surface texturing
was demonstrated following three aspects: (i) The extended
contact area. (ii) The increase in surface roughness pro-
moted the mechanical locking effect.34–36 (iii) The
improved wettability allowed the adhesive to better pene-
trate the texture. It is known that there is an optimum rough-
ness range, outside of which the bond strength decreases.
Indeed, the mechanical interlocking disappears due to inad-
equate penetration of adhesive on smooth surfaces. For
very rough surfaces, insufficient wetting occurs (air can
be entrapped in the asperity valleys) and then joint resist-
ance decreases.37–39 In this study, TF and FS textures
exhibited poor wettability (Figure 13). However, the
shear strength was greatly improved (Figure 15).
Therefore, due to the complexity of surface textures, it is
insufficient to analyse the effect of surface texture on the
bond strength from a physical adsorption perspective.17
Naat et al. 13

Figure 16. Failure mode of block shear specimens for (a) P600, (b) P1000, (c) P80, (d) As-printed, (e) TF and (f) FS surface textures.

In this case, the great improvement of joint strength for
bio-inspired textures can be mainly attributed to the
increased contact area and mechanical interlocking effect.
(ii) Mixed failure (cohesive and adhesive) with a high per-
Failure analysis
Figure 16 shows how texturing a surface modifies the
failure mode. The fracture surfaces exhibited the follow-
ing failure modes:
(i) Adhesive failure, for the substrates abraded with
P600 and P1000 grit paper (smooth surfaces). The
fracture occurred at the interface between the adher-
end and the adhesive, suggesting little or no mechan-
ical interlocking effect, which leads to the lower
bond strength.
centage of adhesive failure, for the specimens as-printed
and abraded with P80 grit paper. In this case, the crack
runs close to the interface on opposite sides and meets
roughly in the middle of the overlap.40 Therefore, the
increased contact area and some degree of mechanical
locking contribute to the improvement of bond strength,
compared to smooth surfaces.
14 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 17. Cross-sectional view of adhesive bonded joint for (a) TF and (b) FS textures.

Figure 18. Mechanical models for (a) smooth surfaces (P600 and P1000), (b) P80, (c) As-printed, (d) FS and (e) TF textured surfaces
(Fs: shear force, Fp: physical force, Fm: Mechanical interlocking force, Mb: generated bending moment).

(iii) Mixed failure (cohesive and adhesive), for the speci- observed in the TF grooves and on the FS scales,
mens with bio-inspired textures with wider areas of which proved the effectiveness of mechanical inter-
cohesive failure in the adhesive compared to locking between the textured adherends and the
as-printed and P80 textures. The adhesive was adhesive.
Naat et al.
For both TF and FS structured surfaces, poor wetting
indicated by WCA measurements seems to be overcome
by: (i) the applied pressure during the bonding
process.13 (ii) There is no additional pressure from air
entrapped between the adhesive and the substrate, as it
can easily escape through the texture (open structures).
Therefore, the adhesive better fills the texture cavities,
generates the required mechanical anchoring and provides
high shear strength, as shown in Figure 17.
From the analyses of the relation between the wettabil-
ity and the joint resistance of textured surfaces, it can be
concluded that the static contact angle is not an effective
parameter for evaluating the shear strength of bonded
joints, which is consistent with the results obtained by
Maressa et al.13 Indeed, the applied pressure during the
bonding process can change the wetting state (e.g.
wetting transition from metastable Cassie–Baxter state
to the stable Wenzel state) on the textured surface.41
To better understand the influence of surface texturing
on bond strength, appropriate mechanical models are
developed based on different adhesion mechanisms.
There is no single theory to account for the adhesion phe-
nomenon, but it is usually divided into three categories:
mechanical interlocking, physical bonding (weak bonds
such as van der Waals forces or hydrogen bonds) and
chemical bonding (strong bonds such as ionic and cova-
lent bonds). For chemical bonding, coupling agents and
adhesion promoters are often required. Thus, in this
experiment, the dominant bonding mechanisms are phys-
ical adsorption and mechanical interlocking. The mechan-
ical models are created based on these two bonding
mechanisms, as illustrated in Figure 18.
For smooth surfaces (Figure 18(a)), physical forces
(Fp) dominate whereas mechanical anchorage is very
weak. Failure occurs at the PC/adhesive interface when
the shear force reaches the maximum value of Fp.
For both P80 (Figure 18(b)) and as-printed (Figure 18(c))
texture, it appears that the mechanical keying influences the
strength of bonded joints. In this case, failure occurs at the
interface when the shear force exceeds the Fp’s maximum
value. Then, the mechanical locking force (Fm) further
resists the shearing force. However, during the shear test,
the inclined inner wall of the texture caused an upward com-
ponent of tensile force. Thus, due to the non-collinearity of
the two forces, a significant bending moment (Mb) will be
produced. As a result, the adhesive is pulled out from the
grooves, causing the joint to fail.
In the case of FS (Figure 18(d)) and TF (Figure 18(e))
bio-inspired textures, the mechanical interlock was found
to have a great effect on the shear strength of the PC
bonded joints. In both textures, the inner wall was
nearly perpendicular to the upper surface. Hence, the
force Fm, without an upward component, was perpen-
dicular to this internal wall. Therefore, adhesive was not
easy to escape from the texture and the interlocking
effect of surface texture was reinforced a lot. In TF hier-
archical texture, the shape (hexagonal grooves) with
high aspect ratio depth/with (1.5) led to a significant
15
decrease in the bending moment Mb and improve the
interlocking of the adhesive in these grooves, as a
result, the shear strength was the highest compared to
the other textures. During the shearing test, failure
always occurs first on the top surface of the hierarchical
texture. Subsequently, shear stress is produced at the
corner (stress concentration) under the combined action
of the shearing force and mechanical interlocking force.
Therefore, the adhesive is broken from the top surface,
and a portion of the adhesive remains locked in the
grooves of the PC textured surface.
Conclusion
This study was conducted to examine the effect of
bio-inspired surface texture on the resistance of
3D-printed PC bonded joints. An AM process (FDM) is
utilized to manufacture PC substrates with desired
surface texture. Therefore, the adhesively bonded AM
specimens with bio-inspired surface textures were com-
pared with traditional bonding on abraded surfaces.
ASTM D4501 standard block shear test method was
used to evaluate bonded joints’ shear strength. The fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn:
1. Substrates with TF and FS surface texture inspired by
biosystems (i.e. Tree frog toe and Fish scales) are
easily manufactured through the FDM 3D-printing
method in one step.
2. The as-printed surface exhibited a regularly striped
pattern with an ellipsoidal shape, resulting in high
surface roughness. The abrading treatment removes
the as-printed texture and forms an anisotropic stochas-
tic texture. Polishing with P1000 significantly
decreases surface roughness by flattening the surface
asperities. For bio-inspired textures, a hierarchical
macrostructure was observed on the surface of a
3D-printed PC substrate.
3. WCA increased with increasing surface roughness.
The as-printed, P80 and bio-inspired textures (rough
surfaces) showed a mainly hydrophobic behaviour.
P600 and P1000 abraded surfaces (smooth surfaces)
exhibited hydrophilic behaviour.
4. For smooth surfaces, the joint strength correlates with
the wettability and the decrease of WCA increases
shear strength. Thus, the influence of physical adsorp-
tion is more significant than mechanical interlocking.
However, the correlation between the shear strength
and the contact angle for very rough surfaces is
reversed, as the influence of mechanical interlock is
more important than that of physical adsorption.
5. The failure mode of bonded joints with smooth sur-
faces was an adhesive failure and mixed failure was
obtained on rough surfaces. The bio-inspired textures
showed mixed failure with increased adhesive cover-
age on both sides of the fracture surface compared to
as-printed and P80 textures, due to the mechanical
interlocking effect.
16
6. Mechanical models are suggested based on different
adhesion mechanisms and failure modes. The hexagonal
grooves with a high aspect ratio (depth/width) of 1.5 in
the TF hierarchical texture significantly decreased the
bending moment and enhanced the interlocking of the
adhesive in these grooves, resulting in the maximum
shear strength compared to the other textures.
In a future study, it is necessary to further investigate the
interlocking mechanism and optimise the surface texture.
In addition, fatigue tests are required to find out whether
surface texturing can improve the fatigue strength of
bonded joints.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Laboratory of Textile
Engineering-LGTex, Textile Department, Iset Ksar Hellal
(Monastir-Tunisia), for its support in the wettability tests.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning
the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
N Naat https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8274-4796
S Mezlini https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1209-4246
LFM da Silva https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3272-4591
References
1. da Silva LFM, Öchsner A and Adams RD. Handbook of
Adhesion Technology. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 2018.
2. Petrie EM. Handbook of Adhesives and Sealants. 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007.
3. Naat N, Boutar Y, Naïmi S, et al. Effect of surface texture on
the mechanical performance of bonded joints: a review. J
Adhes 2021; 00: 1–93.
4. Boutar Y, Naïmi S, Mezlini S, et al. Effect of surface treat-
ment on the shear strength of aluminium adhesive single-lap
joints for automotive applications. Int J Adhes Adhes 2016;
67: 38–43.
5. Langowski JKA, Dodou D, Kamperman M, et al. Tree frog
attachment: mechanisms, challenges, and perspectives.
Front Zool 2018; 15: 1–21.
6. Federle W, Barnes WJP, Baumgartner W, et al. Wet but not
slippery: boundary friction in tree frog adhesive toe pads. J
R Soc Interface 2006; 3: 689–697.
7. Liu M, Wang S, Wei Z, et al. Bioinspired design of a super-
oleophobic and low adhesive water/solid interface. Adv Mater
2009; 21: 665–669.
8. Bixler GD and Bhushan B. Bioinspired rice leaf and butterfly
wing surface structures combining shark skin and lotus
effects. Soft Matter 2012; 8: 11271–11284.
9. Koch K, Blecher IC, König G, et al. The superhydrophilic and
superoleophilic leaf surface of Ruellia devosiana
(Acanthaceae): a biological model for spreading of water
and oil on surfaces. Funct Plant Biol 2009; 36: 339–350.
Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
10. Chen H, Zhang P, Zhang L, et al. Continuous directional
water transport on the peristome surface of Nepenthes alata.
Nature 2016; 532: 85–89.
11. Comanns P, Buchberger G, Buchsbaum A, et al. Directional,
passive liquid transport: The Texas horned lizard as a model
for a biomimetic “liquid diode.”. J R Soc Interface 2015;
12: 1–8.
12. Feng Z, Zhao H, Tan C, et al. Effect of laser texturing on the
surface characteristics and bonding property of 30CrMnSiA
steel adhesive joints. J Manuf Process 2019; 47: 219–228.
13. Maressa P, Anodio L, Bernasconi A, et al. Effect of surface
texture on the adhesion performance of laser treated
Ti6Al4V alloy. J Adhes 2015; 91: 518–537.
14. da Silva LFM, Ferreira NMAJ, Richter-Trummer V, et al.
Effect of grooves on the strength of adhesively bonded
joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 2010; 30: 735–743.
15. Xie Y, Yang B, Lu L, et al. Shear strength of bonded joints of
carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) laminates enhanced by
a two-step laser surface treatment. Compos Struct 2020; 232:
111559.
16. Biggemann J, Müller P, Köllner D, et al. Hierarchical surface
texturing of hydroxyapatite ceramics: influence on the adhe-
sive bonding strength of polymeric polycaprolactone. J
Funct Biomater 2020; 11: 1–20.
17. Liu X, Zhu H, Xie Y, et al. Optimization of microstructural
morphology via laser processing to enhance the bond strength
of Al-CFRP. J Reinf Plast Compos 2021; 40: 463–473.
18. Salstela J, Suvanto M and Pakkanen TT. Influence of hier-
archical micro-micro patterning and chemical modifications
on adhesion between aluminum and epoxy. Int J Adhes
Adhes 2016; 66: 128–137.
19. Wan H, Min J, Carlson BE, et al. Spindle-Shaped surface
microstructure inspired by directional water collection biosys-
tems to enhance interfacial wetting and bonding strength. ACS
Appl Mater Interfaces 2021; 13: 13760–13770.
20. Nash R, Chaput H, Afb WP, et al. Mechanical behavior of
bio-inspired wavy adhesive bonding under shear. In: ASME
2017 International mechanical engineering congress and
exposition, Tampa, Florida, USA, 3–9 November 2017,
paper no. IMECE2017-71791, pp.1–7. New York: ASME.
21. Alfano M, Morano C, Bruno L, et al. Analysis of debonding
in bio-inspired interfaces obtained by additive manufacturing.
Procedia Struct Integr 2018; 8: 604–609.
22. Spaggiari A and Denti F. Mechanical strength of adhesively
bonded joints using polymeric additive manufacturing. Proc
Inst Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 2019; 0: 1–9.
23. Bürenhaus F, Moritzer E and Hirsch A. Adhesive bonding of
FDM-manufactured parts made of ULTEM 9085 considering
surface treatment, surface structure, and joint design. Weld
World 2019; 63: 1819–1832.
24. Garcia R and Prabhakar P. Bond interface design for single
lap joints using polymeric additive manufacturing. Compos
Struct 2017; 176: 547–555.
25. Fieger T, Nugara D, Huebner J, et al. Optimization of adhe-
sively joined laser-sintered parts. In: Proceedings of the
28th annual international solid freeform fabrication sympo-
sium—an additive manufacturing conference reviewed
paper, Austin, TX, USA, 7–9 August 2017, pp.567–577,
Austin: University of Texas.
26. Forster AM. Materials testing standards for additive
manufacturing of polymer materials: state of the art and
standards applicability, NIST Interagency/Internal Report
(NISTIR). National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, 2015.
Naat et al.
27. Bähr F and Westkämper E. Correlations between influencing
parameters and quality properties of components produced
by fused deposition modeling. Procedia CIRP 2018; 72:
1214–1219.
28. McLouth TD, Gustafson SM, Kim HI, et al. Enhancement of
FDM ULTEM® 9085 bond strength via atmospheric plasma
treatment. J Manuf Process 2021; 66: 179–188.
29. Si Y, Dong Z and Jiang L. Bioinspired designs of superhydro-
phobic and superhydrophilic materials. ACS Cent Sci 2018; 4:
1102–1112.
30. Young T. An Essay on the Cohesion of Fluids. R Soc London
1805; 95: 65–87.
31. Vogler EA. Structure and reactivity of water at biomaterial
surfaces. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 1998; 74: 69–117.
32. Foltyn P, Restle F, Wissmann M, et al. The effect of patterned
micro-structure on the apparent contact angle and three-
dimensional contact line. Fluids 2021; 6: 92.
33. Sorrentino L, Parodo G and Turchetta S. CFRP laser texturing
to increase the adhesive bonding: morphological analysis of
treated surfaces. J Adhes 2021; 97: 1322–1335.
34. Seo DW, Yoon HC, Lee JY, et al. Effects of surface treatment and
loading speed on adhesive strength of aluminum to polycarbonate
lap joints. Key Eng Mater 2004; 261–263: 405–410.
17
35. Zhang C, Zhang Y, Chen L, et al. Effects of laser processing
microgrooves on the shear strength of Ti6Al4V adhesively
bonded joints. J Adhes 2022; 98: 1461–1479.
36. Cai D, Wen Y, Qiu J, et al. Mechanical property and structure
of polycarbonate /aluminum alloy hybrid prepared by
ultrasound-assisted hot-pressing technology. J Adhes 2022;
00: 1–24.
37. Ş ekercíoǧ lu T, Rende H, Gülsöz A, et al. The effects of
surface roughness on the strength of adhesively bonded cylin-
drical components. J Mater Process Technol 2003; 142:
82–86.
38. Budhe S, Ghumatkar A, Birajdar N, et al. Effect of surface
roughness using different adherend materials on the adhesive
bond strength. Appl Adhes Sci 2015; 3: 20.
39. Moroni F, Musiari F, Romoli L, et al. Influence of laser treat-
ment parameters on the mode I strain energy release rate of
aluminum double cantilever beam joints. Int J Adhes Adhes
2018; 83: 31–40.
40. Harris JA and Adams RA. Strength prediction of bonded
single lap joints by non-linear finite element methods. Int J
Adhes Adhes 1984; 4: 65–78.
41. Lafuma A and Quéré D. Superhydrophobic states. Nat Mater
2003; 2: 457–460.