Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Buckling and dynamic responses of 3D printed nanocomposites and their

graded variants
Sumodh Kumar a, M.R. Ramesh a, P. Jeyaraj a, Mrityunjay Doddamani b, *
a
Advanced Manufacturing Lab, Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Karnataka, Surathkal, India
b
School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Mandi 175075, Himachal Pradesh, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The experimental and numerical investigations are carried out for buckling and vibration of 3D printed func­
MWCNTs tionalized MWCNTs/HDPE based nanocomposite (NC) and their functionally graded nanocomposite (FGNC)
HDPE variants. Pcr (critical buckling load) is computed through MBC (modified budiansky criteria) and DTM (double
Functionally Graded Material
tangent method) techniques. It is observed that Pcr of the 3D printed NCs and FGNCs increases with the func­
Nanocomposites
Buckling
tionalized MWCNTs content. The Pcr values for the NCs (H0.5-H5) computed using DTM and MBC increased in
Free vibration the range of 16–79%, while for FGNC-1 (H0.5-H1-H3) and FGNC-2 (H1-H3-H5), the Pcr increased from 54 to 91%
compared to HDPE. Further, it is observed that the natural frequency of the NCs and FGNCs increases with the
functionalized MWCNTs loading while decreases with rise in compression. The natural frequency of the NCs
(H0.5-H5) and FGNCs increased up to 41% than HDPE. The highest Pcr and the natural frequency is noted for H5
and FGNC-2 prints. The experimental and numerical results showed good agreement.

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have excellent tensile strength [19,20], high

1. Introduction
FFF (fused filament fabrication) AM (additive manufacturing) is the
most known manufacturing process for the fabrication of thermoplastic
polymer/composite components due to the easy availability of its
feedstock filaments, easy and simple process, low tooling cost, lower
lead time, and capacity to produce components with complex geome­
tries [1–3]. The components are created through the layer-by-layer
deposition of the input material using G-code in the AM process [4].
The AM technique is primarily utilized to produce parts for spacecraft
[5,6], medical equipment [7,8], aircraft [9,10], automobiles [11], ma­
rine [12], and consumer goods [13]. The most common thermoplastic
polymers utilized in the FFF AM method include ABS, polyetherimide,
PMMA, PC, PCL, polyamide, PP, polybutylene terephthalate, PLA, and
HDPE [14,15]. The production of thermoplastic polymer-based com­
posites, which are gaining popularity because of their tailoring proper­
ties and important applications across disciplines like automotive,
aerospace, marine, naval, biomedical, and defense, is also realized using
FFF AM [4]. Nano-clay, glass fiber, carbon fiber, graphene, carbon
black, hollow microspheres including fly ash cenospheres, Al2O3 pow­
der, glass micro balloons (GMBs), and carbon nanotubes, are frequently
employed as fillers to reinforce these thermoplastic polymers [16–18].
elastic modulus (1 TPa) [21–23], higher thermal conductivities (3000
W/mK) [24], electrical conductivities (105 –107 S/m) [25], substantially
larger aspect ratios (1000–10,000) [26–28], and enhanced surface
areas/volume [20,29]. CNTs are brittle. Embedding CNTs in a thermo­
plastic polymer matrix (such as HDPE) can minimize its ductility, which
helps improve the thermal and dimensional stability of 3D printed
samples by minimizing warpage posing the major hurdles in the 3D
printing process [4]. In comparison to other macro, micro, and nano­
fillers, the small amount of CNTs addition (≤5%) in HDPE considerably
enhances the mechanical properties [24]. Common thermoplastics used
with CNTs are polyethylene [30], thermoplastic polyurethane, poly­
carbonate [31], polypropylene, polystyrene [32], etc. Due to the
excellent mechanical response of CNTs, and their capability to reduce
shrinkage, they are a suitable filler candidates and hence selected in this
work. HDPE is extensively utilized as industrial thermoplastics and has
exceptional mechanical and physical properties [16,33,34]. The prop­
erties of HDPE include high impact strength, good wear resistance
(abrasion and fatigue capabilities), a low coefficient of friction, mild
rigidity, and stiffness [24]. HDPE is used in jugs, household appliances,
chemical vessels, packaging, and other structural regimes [4,35–37].
Common fillers used with HDPE are nano clay [16], fly ash cenospheres
[38,12,39], carbon [40], graphite nanofibers [41], GMBs [42,43], wood

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mrityunjay@iitmandi.ac.in (M. Doddamani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117031
Received 17 December 2022; Received in revised form 2 March 2023; Accepted 8 April 2023
Available online 13 April 2023
0263-8223/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

Table 2
Nomenclature Typical properties of functionalized MWCNTs* [69,70].
Property Typical values
ρCNT MWCNT density (kg/m3)
Purity ~99%
ρH HDPE density (kg/m3) Outer Diameter 10–30 nm
ρC Composite density (kg/m3) Inner Diameter 5–10 nm
WH HDPE (by wt. %) Length >10 μm
Surface Area 110–350 m2/g
WCNT MWCNT (by wt. %)
CNT content ~95–99%
ρexp Density - experimental (kg/m3) Bulk Density 140 kg/m3
MWCNT Multi walled carbon nanotube Chemical Formula C
f Frequency at applied load, P Physical Form Very Light Powder, Fluffy
Odour Odourless
fn Natural Frequency at no-load (Hz)
Colour Black
α Angle between ω’s (◦ )
*
ε Damping factor As per supplier.
ω Angular frequency (rad/s)
ρth Density - theoretical (kg/m3) different domains like electronic and electric industries, automotive
HDPE High density polyethylene sectors, construction, biomedical, aerospace, and military applications
[16]. The functionally graded materials (FGMs) are specialized com­
posites whose properties (density, strength, modulus, etc.) vary through

a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) HDPE granules and (b) functionalized MWCNTs.

the thickness. The stiffness variation further causes continuously

Table 1
distributed stresses compared to laminated counterparts [47]. Due to the
Typical characteristics of HDPE granules* [69,70].
smooth variation in the material properties, FGMs find their significance
Property Typical value in plates [48], beams [49], panels [50], and conical and cylindrical
Average Granule Size ~3 mm shells [51,52]. FGMs were utilized as a primary material in aircrafts,
MFI (190 ◦ C/2.16 kg) 20.0 g/10 min initially, by the Japanese in 1984. FGMs are usually developed by
Density (23 ◦ C) 950 kg/m3 powder metallurgy and liquid and gas-based manufacturing processes,
Tensile Strength at Yield 22 MPa
Elongation at Yield 12%
but still, they are not much explored with AM process [53,54]. CNT
Flexural Modulus 750 MPa based HDPE PNCs can be employed in different applications such as
Vicat Softening Point 124 ◦ C thermistors [55], gears [46], transport and noise spectroscopy devices
*
As per supplier. [56], and different consumer [57] and structural applications [58]. The
thin-walled structural members when subjected to compressive load, the
members fail due to an unexpected phenomenon known as buckling,
flour [44], etc. Due to the impressive mechanical properties and the
where the members fail below the yield load. The applied compressive
wide range of HDPE applications from daily life to several functional
load induces pre-stresses in the structural member, affecting the beam
fields, it is selected as a matrix in the present work. The inclusion of
stiffness and natural frequency [59]. Therefore, studying the beams’ free
MWCNTs to neat HDPE might result in excellent mechanical properties
vibration and buckling behavior is crucial for the safe design of the
which can subsequently be utilized in a range of sophisticated functional
structures under static and dynamic applications.
parts [45].
Darvizeh et al. [60] analyzed the buckling behavior of metal-ceramic
Composites reinforced with nano-size fillers (such as nano-clay, CNT,
based FG (functionally graded) beam structures under thermal and
graphene, etc.) are known as NC. Polymer NCs (PNCs) have drawn the
mechanical loads. The FG beams showed higher buckling strength in the
attention of researchers due to their unique and superior material
clamped–clamped boundary condition. Gunasekaran et al. [61]
characteristics among all the NCs [46], and they have applications in
analyzed the effect of non-uniform edge heating on dynamic and

2
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

a) (b)
Fig. 2. (a) NC pellets and (b) developed filament of H5 composition.

epoxy composite showed higher deflection than hybrid composite.

Table 3
Suitable 3D printing parameters used for 3D printing of samples
[69,70].
Printing parameters Values
Extrusion multiplier 0.90–1.0 [0.95]*
Layer height (mm) 0.30–0.50 [0.50]
Nozzle temperature (◦ C) 200–220 [200]
Printing speed (mm/s) 25–30 [30]
*
Values in brackets are set in the machine.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. Representative images of 3D printed FGNC-2 (a) top view and (b) across
thickness showing proper diffusion of raster at the interface of differently
graded materials.
buckling responses of graphene-reinforced FG composite plates. They
observed that the stiffness of the structures considerably affects through-
thickness graphene gradation, which further influences the beam’s
natural frequency. Ramesh et al. [62] investigated the dynamic behavior
of epoxy/carbon fiber based laminated beams. They observed that the fn
of the beams increased with carbon fiber reinforcement. Waddar et al.
[63] analyzed the dynamic and buckling responses of cenosphere and
epoxy-based foams subjected to compressive load. They found the
buckling load of the beams to increase with fly ash cenospheres loading
and the natural frequency to decrease with rise in compressive load.
Amol et al. [64] experimentally investigated the thermal buckling
behavior of glass and sisal woven fabric/epoxy composites under
different non-uniform heating. They found that sisal woven fabric/
Bharath et al. [65] analyzed the buckling response of GMB/HDPE 3D
printed foams and showed the effect of GMB variation on critical
buckling load and natural frequency. They found Pcr and fn of 3D printed
foams to increase with GMB %. Bharath et al. [66] conducted experi­
mental work on free vibration and Pcr of 3D printed HDPE/GMB sand­
wich beams. They observed that increasing GMB content improves
sandwich beams’ natural frequency and buckling strength. Kumar et al.
[67] investigated the dynamic behavior of porous graphene plates. They
observed that the structure’s stiffness is considerably affected by the
porosity distribution across the thickness of the plate. Dileep et al. [68]
analyzed buckling, and dynamic responses of 3D printed GMBs based FG
beams. They observed that the natural frequency and buckling load
increases with GMB %, and FG foams showed the better performance.
The previous studies reveal that the buckling and dynamic behavior
of printed functionalized MWCNTs/HDPE based NC and their FGNCs
have not been investigated. They are yet to be explored. Therefore, it is
significant to explore the manufacturing feasibility of functionalized
MWCNTs/HDPE NCs and their FGNCs using a 3D printing process and to
investigate their mechanical buckling and free vibration behavior,
which provide design flexibility for complex and integrated parts. The
functionalized NCs (MWCNTs/HDPE) are prepared as pellets through
the blending process. Further, these NC pellets are used to extrude fil­
aments through a single screw extruder which is subsequently utilized
for AM of NCs and FGNCs using an FFF based 3D printer. The 3D printed
NCs and FGNCs are tested for mechanical buckling and dynamic
behavior, and the experimental outcomes are compared with numerical
values. A major improvement in the buckling and dynamic responses is
observed due to the established functional gradation through 3D print­
ing. The H5 and H1-H3-H5 (FGNC-2) exhibited superior buckling and
dynamic behavior. Finally, the buckling strength property map vs. the
density is presented to compare the previously published works on
thermoplastics filled with different fillers.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
HDPE granules (HD50MA180, Fig. 1a) supplied by IOCL, India, are
used as matrix, and the MWCNTs (functionalized) powder (Fig. 1b)
produced by the carbon vapor deposition method are supplied by
Adnano technologies, Karnataka, India, are used as filler. The properties
of procured HDPE and the MWCNTs are listed in Table 1 and Table 2,
respectively [69,70].

3
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

NC FGNC-1 FGNC-2
H3 N1 H5 N1

3D Printing
Direction
H5 H1 N2 H3 N2
H0.5 N1 H1 N1

(a)

Interface-2
between H3 and H5

Interface-1
between H1 and H3

(b)

Fig. 4. Representative (a) 3D printing direction of NCs and FGNCs and (b) SEM image showing proper/seamless bonding between two different gradations in as 3D
printed FGNC-2.

(a) (b)

3D printed sample 3D printed sample

before buckling after buckling

(c)
0.2 mm/min

Deflection

Fig. 5. Experimental setup showing (a) pre-buckling, (b) post-buckling and (c) buckled/deflected shape of the 3D printed sample.

4
S. Kumar et al.
100
Compressive Load (N)
80
60
40 FGNC-2
20
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Displacement (mm)
(a)
Fig. 6. (a) DTM and (b) MBC for calculating Pcr from load-deflection curve.
2.2. Nanocomposite preparation and filament extrusion
The HDPE and the functionalized MWCNTs are mixed with 1 h/
composition mixing rate using a Brabender (counter-rotating, 16CME
SPL) at 10 rpm blending speed and 210 ◦ C mixing temperature [71]. The
NCs are prepared in the form of pellets by varying 0.5, 1, 3 and 5 wt% of
the functionalized MWCNTs in HDPE (H0.5, H1, H3 and H5). The NC
pellets of H5 composition are depicted by Fig. 2a. Pre-heating (80 ℃, 24
h) of the NC pellets is conducted in an oven to eliminate moisture
content and past thermal stresses followed by filament extrusion using a
25SS/MF/26 extruder (single screw) provided by Aasabi Pvt. Ltd.,
Mumbai, India. The barrel temperatures are set for 145–150–155–145
℃ (from feed to die zone) and left to be stablized for some time. After
stabilizing the set temperatures, the warmed pellets are placed into the
hopper. The screw and roller rpm are maintained respectively at 25.1
and 11.8, and H-H5 NC filaments with 2.85 ± 0.05 mm diameter
(Fig. 2b) are extruded for printing NCs and FGNCs.
2.3. 3D printing of NCs and FGNCs
A commercial FFF technology based 3D printer (Aha 3D, India) with
2 nozzles (Ø 0.8 mm) is used for 3D printing. The H-H5 extrudates in
filament form are utilized for AM of HDPE, NCs, and FGNCs. First, the
CAD file of the sample is made and converted into STL (stereo­
lithography) file. The STL file is sliced and transformed into G-code file
with the help of slicing software (Simplify3D), and subsequently im­
ported into the 3D printing machine. The suitable 3D printing parame­
ters (nozzle temperature and printing speed), as presented in Table 3
[69,70,72,73], are set in the machine. Once the set nozzle temperature is
reached, the filament is loaded for initiating 3D printing of NCs. The 3D
printed samples are named H-H5. Once the 3D printing of NCs is
concluded, printing of FGNCs is initiated. Again, as mentioned earlier,
the CAD file of the specimen is prepared and converted into .STL file.
Subsequently, the STL file is sliced and only the printing thickness for
different gradations/compositions is defined for each nozzle (N1 and
N2). The file is converted into G-code and imported to the 3D printer.
The printing parameters are set (Table 3), both nozzles are loaded with
appropriate filaments, and 3D printing for two gradations/compositions
is initiated. Once the 2 compositions/gradations are printed, the printer
is paused for 30 s, the nozzle is moved up to a height of 10 mm for
clearance between the nozzle tip and the print followed by loading of the
third gradation/composition filament into the first nozzle. The 3D
printing is resumed from the same position to get three different gra­
dations/compositions. In the current study, two graded nanocomposite
Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031
100
Compressive Load (N)
80
60
40 FGNC-2
20
1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm)
(b)
varients (FGNC-1 and FGNC-2) are 3D printed using suitable printing
parameters as mentioned in Table 3. FGNC-1 represents H0.5-H1-H3
graded material, whereas FGNC-2 represents H1-H3-H5 graded mate­
rial. There are possibilities for many composite gradations, such as 2/3/
4/5. Still, in the current study, 3-composite gradations (near to average
composition value) have been considered for analyzing the mechanical
buckling and dynamic behavior. The 3D printed FGNC-2 and its thick­
ness direction shows raster-to-raster diffusion at the interfaces of
different graded materials as seen from Fig. 3. The 3D printing direction
and the various gradations for FGNC-1 and FGNC-2 with the corre­
sponding nozzle used during their 3D printing are presented in Fig. 4a.
The proper bonding between two different gradations in a 3D printed
FGNC-2 is shown in Fig. 4b. All the H-H5 NCs, FGNC-1, and FGNC-2 are
3D printed with 310 × 12.5 × 4 (mm) on Kraton™ SEBS FG1901 with
100 % infill and permitted to cool up to room temperature for obtaining
warpage-free prints [65,74]. SEM is conducted on gold coated as 3D
printed and freeze-fractured samples using an EVO 18 SEM (ZEISS)
instrument.
2.4. Density measurement
The 3D printed specimens’ experimental density (ASTM D792-13) is
measured with the help of Contech analytical balance. Five (at least)
specimens of each configuration are measured for density, and their
mean values are reported. The theoretical density of 3D printed samples
is measured using the rule of mixture formula given in equation (1).
1
ρc = WH (1)
+ Wρ CNT
ρH CNT
2.5. Tensile test
The Young’s moduli and Poisson’s ratio of the 3D printed HDPE and
NCs are taken from Ref. [69]. In contrast, for FGNCs (FGNC-1 and FGNC-
2), a tensile test is carried out on a UTM of 20 kN (Z020, USA), as out­
lined in ASTM D638-14 keeping the test speed of 5 mm/min. For the
strain measurement (initial load-0.1 MPa), an extensometer of 2-inch
gauge length is used.
2.6. Mechanical buckling
There is no specified ASTM standard for mechanical buckling ex­
periments of 3D printed samples. Therefore, specimens of 210 (span
length) × 12.5 (width) × 4 (thickness) mm3 dimension are considered
5
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

3D printed
sample
Accelero-
meter

Impulse
hammer

DAQ
system

(a)

Impulse from Load cell

hammer Controller
DAQ Board
Specimen

Buckled
shape of
sample

Dewesoft
FFT
Analyzer Data Acquisition UTM

Accelerometer

UTM Fixture

(b)
Fig. 7. (a) Experimental setup and (b) the schematic representation of free vibration test.

for the mechanical buckling investigations in accordance with Euler
Bernoulli’s beam theory [65,68]. The buckling test is performed on
minimum of five samples for each configuration/composition using
Tinius Olsen UTM (H75KS, UK, Load cell-50 kN). The experimental
setting of the test is presented in Fig. 5. The samples are fixed at both
ends, and axial compressive load is gradually applied at 0.2 mm/min
speed for conducting the test. The shift in buckling responses from pre-
buckling to post-buckling is carefully investigated by 0.6 mm end-
shortening [65]. The test is stopped once the sample is buckled and
the load–deflection data are obtained. Pcr is obtained using the
load–deflection data from UTM though DTM and MBC approaches
[65,68]. In the DTM method, one tangent is drawn on the pre-buckling
curve, and another is drawn on the post-buckling curve. The load cor­
responding to the meeting point of both tangents gives Pcr of the sample.
In MBC method, one tangent is drawn on the pre-buckling curve and
another is drawn on the post-buckling curve then a bisector is drawn on
the curve for the angle between the two tangents. The load corre­
sponding to the intersection point gives Pcr . The graphical approaches,
DTM and MBC methods to calculate Pcr have been presented in Fig. 6.
The similar procedure is used for testing all the 3D printed NCs and
FGNCs. Results from these DTM and MBC methods and the comparison
between them are reported in the present work. Pcr evaluated from DTM
and MBC method is respectively assumed as the upper and lower critical
buckling loads [68].

6
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

FRF

Mode shape
Mode circle
Showing the 1st mode

Fig. 8. DEWESoft software showing FRF, mode shape and mode circle in the experimental modal analysis.

sensitivity-10 mV/g) attached to the specimen with the help of bee’s

Table 4 wax is utilized to capture the vibration signals generated by an impact
Elastic properties of 3D printed samples. hammer (9722A2000, Kistler, sensitivity-10 mV/N). The sample having
Composition Young’s modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Reference ten marking points for excitation is clamped at both of the ends in the
UTM and the test is carried out with a 20 N force increment to analyze
HDPE 711 0.4607 [69]
H0.5 824 0.4587 the natural frequencies along with the corresponding damping factor,
H1 849 0.4559 with 2 min pause in between the test, for each load increment [65]. The
H3 1030 0.4486 sample is tapped/hammered at all marked points under the particular
H5 1290 0.4429 loading condition, and the generated vibrations are captured using
FGNC-1 1100 0.4452
DEWESoft software. Ten channel-based data acquisition (DAQ), vibra­
–
FGNC-2 1350 0.4402 –
tion results, and the time-dependent applied compressive load are fed to
DEWESoft as input data. DEWESoft converts the time to frequency
domain signals utilizing the Fast Fourier transformation method [68].
Table 5 This frequency response corresponding to the impulse excitation at
Density of 3D printed samples. several marked points captures FRF (frequency response function). The
Composition ρth (kg/ ρexp (kg/m3) Weight-saving Reference DEWESoft software renders frequency, associated mode shape, and the
m3) potential (%) damping factor. The FRF, mode shape, and mode circle obtained from
HDPE 950.00 949.00 ± – [69] the modal analysis (experimental) are presented in Fig. 8. The modal
9.45 damping factor is determined based on the circle fit approach using
H0.5 923.90 931.57 ± 1.84 Equation (2) [68].
8.76
H1 898.04 902.77 ± 4.87 ω2 2 − ω1 2
4.48 ε= [ ] (2)
2ω0 ω2 tan α22 + ω1 tan α21
H3 809.49 886.35 ± 6.60
6.35
H5 736.84 801.13 ± 15.58
2.8. Numerical analysis
2.12
FGNC-1 877.14 896.14 ± 5.57 –
3.07 The current work uses ANSYS software to perform mechanical
FGNC-2 814.79 834.46 ± 12.07 – buckling and modal analysis of 3D printed samples using FEM (finite
4.19 element method). The material is first modeled using properties, Pois­
son’s ratio and elastic modulus (Table 4). Then, the geometry of the
2.7. Free vibration sample is created and discretized into a number of elements to get a
finite element (FE) model with the help of a 4-noded SHELL181 element
Experimental modal analysis of 3D printed HDPE, NCs, and FGNCs, having 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) at each node and meshed with 212
having the same dimension as used for buckling specimens, is conducted elements and 270 nodes. The boundary condition (both ends clamped)
to estimate their first three fn and the corresponding damping factor. The and the compressive load are applied to the FE model, and the static
experimental setup and the schematic representation of the free vibra­ analysis (linear) is performed. The eigenvalue buckling studies are car­
tion test are shown in Fig. 7. A uniaxial accelerometer (8778A500, ried out from which the primary buckling mode shape is deduced. The

7
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

Functionalized
MWCNTs
embedded in
HDPE resin

(a) (b)

H3

H1

H1

H0.5

(c) (d)
Fig. 9. Representative SEM images of freeze-fractured as 3D printed (a) H3 NC showing the absence of air voids and porosities, H5 NC showing (b) bonding between
the functionalized MWCNTs and HDPE resin and (c) the functionalized MWCNTs dispersion in HDPE, and (d) FGNC-1 depicting the seamless bonding at the interface
between two different gradations.

buckled form of the FE model is updated. The non-linear static analysis is
further performed to obtain non-linear load–deflection responses using
the primary mode shapes with GIF (geometric imperfection factor
− 0.0001 to 0.001). The numerical buckling loads are evaluated using
MBC and DTM methods, and compared with the corresponding experi­
mental values. After the mechanical buckling analysis, a modal
investigations are performed to simulate the free vibration of 3D printed
specimens. The densities given in Table 5 are used for modal analysis.
Further, the same procedure is followed. After the linear static analysis,
a modal analysis is performed under no load condition. The first 3 fn and
the corresponding mode shapes are obtained and compared with the
experimental frequencies.

8
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

100 100

Compressive Load (N)

Compressive Load (N) 80 80

60 60

40 HDPE 40 H0.5
H1
20 20 H3
H5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

100
Compressive Load (N)

80

60

40 FGNC-1
FGNC-2
20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm)
(c)
Fig. 10. Load-deflection curve of 3D printed (a) neat HDPE, (b) NCs and (c) FGNCs.

Table 6
Critical buckling load (Pcr ) of 3D printed samples.
Composition Critical Buckling Load, Pcr (N) Deviation of experimental with respect to numerical results (%)

Experimental Numerical

DTM MBC DTM MBC DTM MBC

HDPE 42.02 ± 1.06 41.25 ± 1.02 43.57 42.28 3.56 2.44

H0.5 48.91 ± 1.11 47.83 ± 0.98 50.59 48.76 3.32 1.91
H1 50.21 ± 1.02 49.01 ± 1.17 52.03 50.96 3.50 3.83
H3 60.52 ± 1.54 59.36 ± 1.38 62.31 61.15 2.87 2.93
H5 75.23 ± 1.22 73.89 ± 1.84 76.94 75.39 2.22 1.99
FGNC-1 64.87 ± 1.03 63.78 ± 1.23 65.88 65.37 1.53 2.43
FGNC-2 80.40 ± 1.65 78.63 ± 1.37 82.25 80.16 2.25 1.91

3. Results and discussion
3.1. SEM analysis
The SEM analysis is carried out to observe the bonding between the
layers, the presence of air voids and porosity, the adhesion at the
interface of two different gradations of the material (FGNCs), and the
bonding between the functionalized MWCNTs and HDPE interface.
Fig. 4b shows the SEM image of 3D printed FGNC-2 sample. It is
observed that there is no delamination between the layers and at the
interface of two different material gradations, showing seamless and
strong bonding between each layer and the proper selection of 3D
printing parameters. Fig. 9a shows the SEM image of freeze-fractured as
3D printed H3 sample. It is clearly visible that there is no porosity and
air voids in the print. It is also observed that the functionalized MWCNTs
are embedded in, and covered by the HDPE resin, indicating strong
attachment between the functionalized MWCNTs and the HDPE
(Fig. 9b). Fig. 9c shows the homogeneous dispersion of the functional­
ized MWCNTs within HDPE. Fig. 9d shows the micrograph of 3D printed
freeze-fractured FGNC-1 wherein the seamless bonding between two

9
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

100 100
Experimental

Compressive Load (N)

Experimental

Compressive Load (N)

80 Numerical 80 Numerical

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
100 100
Experimental Experimental
Compressive Load (N)

Compressive Load (N)

80 Numerical 80 Numerical

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(c) (d)
100 100
Experimental
Compressive Load (N)

Compressive Load (N)

80 Numerical 80

60 60 Experimental
Numerical
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(e) (f)
100
Compressive Load (N)

80

60 Experimental
Numerical
40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (mm)
(g)
Fig. 11. Comparison of experimental and numerical load–deflection curves of 3D printed (a) neat HDPE, (b) H0.5, (C) H1, (d) H3, (e) H5, (f) FGNC-1 and (g)
FGNC-2.

10
S. Kumar et al.
1000
Amplitude log (g/N)
Amplitude log (g/N)
100
10
1
0.1
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (Hz)
(a)
Fig. 12. The FRF plots of 3D printed (a) H5 NC and (b) FGNC-2 under no load conditions.
graded materials is observed at the interface. From all the above ob­
servations, it is clear that the parameters chosen in the blending, fila­
ment extrusion and 3D printing operations are appropriate. The selected
3D printing parameters (Table 3) are well enough to produce good-
quality prints [68].
3.2. Density investigations
The densities of the 3D printed samples are measured and reported in
Table 5. It is noted that the NCs and FGNCs densities decrease with the
functionalized MWCNTs inclusion. This is due to the rise in the func­
tionalized MWCNTs content having a lower density than HDPE. The H5
NC and the FGNC-2 registered the lowest densities. Moreover, it is also
observed that the theoretical and experimental densities are close,
showing the dense and porosity-free samples [16].
3.3. Mechanical buckling studies
The buckling test is conducted for the 3D printed HDPE, NCs and
FGNCs with no slipping at the clamped supports. Global buckling is
observed in all the 3D printed samples with a maximum deflection at the
middle of the span length. No separation between the 3D printed layers
(delamination) (Fig. 4b) was detected in the bucked specimen, which
shows that all the specimens have been 3D printed with the suitable 3D
printing parameters (Table 3), having seamless and strong bonding be­
tween each layer. The load–deflection curves of the 3D printed neat
HDPE, NC and FGNC samples obtained through the buckling test are
presented in Fig. 10, and the corresponding calculated values of Pcr
using DTM and MBC methods are presented in Table 6. It is found that
the Pcr of the NCs increases with the functionalized filler addition than
HDPE (Fig. 10a and b). The Pcr of H0.5, H1, H3 and H5 calculated from
DTM and MBC methods increases by 16.40, 19.49, 44.03 and 79.03 %,
and 15.95, 18.81, 43.90 and 79.13% respectively than HDPE. The
maximum Pcr is observed for H5 among all the NCs. The increase in Pcr of
the 3D printed NCs is because of the functionalized MWCNTs into HDPE
which results in a rise in elastic modulus and hence structural stiffness.
The rise in the elastic modulus increases the buckling strength,
increasing the load carrying capacity of the 3D printed NCs. The highest
Pcr of H5 NC is due to the highest filling of the functionalized fillers into
HDPE. From Fig. 10c, it is also found that the Pcr of 3D printed FGNCs
increases as the functionalized MWCNTs increase in each layer. The Pcr
of FGNC-1 and FGNC-2 calculated from DTM and MBC methods in­
creases by 54.38 and 91.34 %, and 54.62 and 90.62 %, than HDPE. The
highest Pcr is observed for FGNC-2. The addition of the functionalized
11
Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031
100
10
1
0.1
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Frequency (Hz)
(b)
MWCNTs as filler having higher modulus than HDPE improves the
stiffness which further increases the buckling strength of the printed
FGNCs [68]. From Table 6, it is also observed that the Pcr obtained from
DTM is higher than the Pcr obtained from MBC method which clearly
indicates that the DTM estimates higher Pcr , 2 to 5%, than MBC method.
The buckling analysis of all the printed NCs and FGNCs show that the
buckling strength is the highest for the H5 NC and FGNC-2 among all the
3D printed NCs and FGNCs, respectively.
3.4. Comparison of experimental and numerical buckling load
Linear eigenvalue buckling studies are carried out, and the buckled
shape of the FE model is obtained. The buckled shape of the FE model is
updated, and the static analysis of non-linear nature is performed for
getting the load–deflection curve. From the curve, Pcr is obtained with
the help of DTM and MBC methods. The numerical values of Pcr are
compared with the corresponding experimental values. Fig. 11 com­
pares numerically obtained load–deflection curves with experimentally
obtained load–deflection curves. The numerically obtained Pcr values of
all the 3D printed samples and the % deviation in the numerical and the
experimental values are listed in Table 6. The trend of the numerically
obtained Pcr values of all the 3D printed samples is same as experi­
mentally obtained Pcr values. It is clearly observed that the numerically
deduced Pcr is a little greater than the experimentally obtained values.
This difference for both DTM and MBC methods is found in the range of
1.5% to 3.6%. The earlier investigation reveal that the higher numerical
values than the experimental ones might be due to air voids, porosity,
assumed GIF values in the numerical study [68,75]. In the current study,
the SEM analysis reveals no porosity and air voids in the 3D printed
sample. Hence, the difference in the numerical and experimental Pcr may
be because of the assumed GIF values [68,75]. It is also observed that the
numerical results for all the 3D printed samples match well with the
experimental results with a GIF value of 0.0008.
3.5. Free vibration investigations
The axially compressive loaded components change their stiffness,
further influencing the dynamic behavior [65]. Therefore, studying free
vibration is crucial for designing components for dynamic applications.
The study of free vibration behavior of 3D printed neat HDPE, NC and
FGNCs under no-loading and axial compressive loading conditions is
also investigated in this work. The 3D printed samples are marked with
ten points having equal distance (Fig. 7b), and excited at each marked
point with the help of an impact hammer. The associated FRF is
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

900 900
Mode-1 Mode-1
Mode-2 Mode-2
675 675

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)
Mode-3 Mode-3

450 450

225 225

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Load (N) Load (N)
(a) (b)
900 900 Mode-1
Mode-1
Mode-2 Mode-2
675 Mode-3 675 Mode-3
Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)
450 450

225 225

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Load (N) Load (N)
(c) (d)
900 900 Mode-1
Mode-2
675 675 Mode-3
Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Mode-1
Mode-2
450 Mode-3 450

225 225

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Load (N) Load (N)
(e) (f)
900

675
Frequency (Hz)

Mode-1
Mode-2
450 Mode-3

225

0
0 25 50 75 100
Load (N)
(g)
Fig. 13. Variation of the natural frequency with the axial compressive load of 3D printed (a) neat HDPE, (b) H0.5, (c) H1, (d) H3, (e) H5, (f) FGNC-1 and (g) FGNC-2.

12
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

Table 7
Effect of compressive load on natural frequency (Hz) of 3D printed samples.
Composition Mode Load (N) Pcr

0 20 40 60 80

HDPE 1 136.70 124.50 112.08 98.90 – 43

2 339.66 329.80 291.60 272.20 –
3 600.55 578.73 564.09 544.83 –
H0.5 1 146.50 134.75 122.43 110.19 – 49
2 361.69 332.74 298.26 282.97 –
3 612.91 592.18 567.91 548.33 –
H1 1 160.80 150.45 139.86 127.32 – 51
2 376.24 361.61 318.80 310.17 –
3 638.56 622.99 600.85 582.38 –
H3 1 181.37 173.45 164.64 156.53 145.37 62
2 406.46 389.61 380.89 367.81 354.92
3 673.96 670.29 650.77 637.34 617.84
H5 1 192.94 183.80 175.51 167.48 158.94 76
2 428.79 420.14 410.04 394.52 386.22
3 721.58 709.20 703.24 688.63 670.51
FGNC-1 1 185.69 177.90 171.16 165.97 153.61 65
2 412.90 395.58 384.70 370.33 359.69
3 679.26 676.28 660.79 644.52 626.27
FGNC-2 1 199.86 187.39 182.32 172.05 169.21 81
2 436.13 425.74 414.53 400.63 395.06
3 725.23 715.75 710.33 693.89 681.59

measured with the use of an accelerometer. The typical FRF plots of the damping ratio of the 3D printed NCs increases with the compressive load
3D printed H5 NC and FGNC-2 are presented in Fig. 12. The first three as compared to HDPE due to stiffness loss because of an increase in pre-
natural frequency modes are identified from the FRF, and the corre­ stress. A similar observation is noted for the 3D printed FGNCs. The
sponding values are taken. The graph between the natural frequency similar trend is also noted in Ref. [68].
versus an axial compressive load of the 3D printed neat HDPE, NCs and
FGNCs are presented in Fig. 13. The corresponding outcomes are pre­ 3.6. Comparison of experimental and numerical natural frequency
sented in Table 7. It is clearly evident that the natural frequency cor­
responding to the first mode of the 3D printed NCs rise with the rise in The difference between the numerical and experimental vibration
the functionalized MWCNTs in the HDPE than neat HDPE. The natural results is displayed in Table 9. It is seen that the numerically obtained
frequency of the 3D printed NCs increases in the range of 7.17–41.14% natural frequencies exhibited a similar trend as that of the experimental
compared to the HDPE. The increase in the natural frequency is due to observations. Among all the 3D printed NCs, the H5 NC exhibited the
the inclusion of stiffer and functionalized MWCNTs in neat HDPE, which highest natural frequency, whereas; the FGNC-2 exhibited the highest
increases the elastic modulus of the HDPE. The increase in modulus of natural frequency between the FGNC-1 and FGNC-2.. The slight differ­
the HDPE matrix increases the stiffness, which further results in higher ence between the experimental and numerical results is possibly due to
natural frequency. A similar trend has been found in the previous studies the assumptions considered in the numerical investigations [68,75].
on isotropic composite columns and beams [59,65]. For the second and
third modes, a similar trend for natural frequency is observed for the 3D
3.7. Pcr estimation using VCT
printed NCs. It is also seen that the fn corresponding to the 1st mode of
the 3D printed NCs falls with the compressive load compared to the 3D
The Pcr of additively manufactured HDPE, NCs and FGNCs are also
printed neat HDPE. The same trend is found for the second and third
estimated using the vibration responses through VCT. VCT is a non-
modes as well. Due to the application of the compressive load, the
destructive test for estimating Pcr with the help of vibration response.
structure/component undergoes lateral deformation, which changes the
In the VCT, the experimental frequency is obtained corresponding to the
mode shape of the structure. Due to the change in the mode shape, the
load applied that is lower than the Pcr . The curve between the squared
stiffness of the structural members reduces which causes the decrease in
values of fundamental frequency and the compressive load is plotted.
natural frequency. A similar trend is obserbed in Ref. [65]. In case of the
Then, the plot is extrapolated using the second-order polynomial
3D printed FGNCs, the fn corresponding to the first mode is observed to
expression given in equation (3) to evaluate Pcr [65,68]. Fig. 15 presents
be increasing compared to the HDPE due to the increased stiffness of the
the Pcr values of the 3D printed HDPE, NCs and FGNCs using VCT. It is
3D printed FGNCs compared to the HDPE. The 3D printed FGNCs natural
clearly observed that Pcr calculated from VCT also displays the similar
frequency increases by 35.84–46.20% compared to the HDPE. With a
trend as that of DTM and MBC approaches. The comparison of the Pcr
rise in compressive loads, it is observed that the fn of the 3D printed
values of the 3D printed HDPE, NCs and FGNCs, calculated from these
FGNCs (FGNC-1 and FGNC-2) decreases as compared to the HDPE. This
three techniques are presented in Fig. 16. It is clearly seen that the VCT
can be attributed to the change in mode shape due to the application of
overestimates the DTM and MBC methods [65,68]. This comparative
compressive load, which reduces the stiffness and the natural frequency.
analysis helps in estimating the lower and upper limits of Pcr .
The natural frequency of the additively manufactured H, NCs, and
( )2
FGNCs are taken before and after buckling. Similar trends are observed f P
= 1− (3)
post buckling (Table 7 and Fig. 13). Fig. 14 presents the damping factors fn Pcr
of the 3D printed HDPE, NCs and FGNCs, showing the effect of the
different compositions and axial compressive load. The corresponding
3.8. Property map
damping factor values are presented in Table 8. The damping ratio of the
3D printed NCs falls with a rise in the functionalized MWCNTs % than
The density of composites is a crucial property that helps in deciding
HDPE. This is due to the increase in stiffness due to the inclusion of
the lightweight applications. Therefore, the buckling strength and the
stiffer and functionalized MWCNTs in HDPE. It is also found that the
density of the printed FGNCs and NCs are compared against the

13
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05

Damping Factor

Damping Factor
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
Mode-1 Mode-1
0.02 0.02
Mode-2 Mode-2
0.01 Mode-3 0.01 Mode-3
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Load (N) Load (N)
(a) (b)
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
Damping Factor

Damping Factor
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
Mode-1 Mode-1
0.02 0.02
Mode-2 Mode-2
0.01 Mode-3 0.01 Mode-3
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Load (N) Load (N)
(c) (d)
0.06 0.06
0.05 0.05
Damping Factor

Damping Factor

0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
Mode-1 Mode-1
0.02 0.02
Mode-2 Mode-2
0.01 Mode-3 0.01 Mode-3
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Load (N) Load (N)
(e) (f)
0.06
0.05
Damping Factor

0.04
0.03
Mode-1
0.02
Mode-2
0.01 Mode-3
0
0 25 50 75 100
Load (N)
(g)
Fig. 14. Variation of damping ratio with increase in compressive load of 3D printed (a) neat HDPE, (b) H0.5, (c) H1, (d) H3, (e) H5, (f) FGNC-1 and (g) FGNC-2.

14
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

Table 8
Effect of compressive load on damping factor of 3D printed samples.
Composition Mode Load (N) Pcr

0 20 40 60 80

HDPE 1 0.021258 0.024399 0.038069 0.049237 – 43

2 0.020291 0.023121 0.034015 0.046326 –
3 0.019879 0.021912 0.032603 0.040413 –
H0.5 1 0.019149 0.022142 0.032025 0.041395 – 49
2 0.018225 0.021302 0.030021 0.039413 –
3 0.016506 0.019825 0.031224 0.040951
H1 1 0.017418 0.020127 0.031129 0.040023 – 51
2 0.016124 0.017041 0.028610 0.037071 –
3 0.014012 0.018753 0.027012 0.035957 –
H3 1 0.014163 0.017261 0.028012 0.039782 0.050017 62
2 0.012512 0.015023 0.026471 0.037014 0.048329
3 0.010952 0.013875 0.025012 0.036025 0.045182
H5 1 0.011044 0.014127 0.026091 0.037896 0.049037 76
2 0.009341 0.011625 0.022546 0.034578 0.046023
3 0.008902 0.010205 0.020320 0.032546 0.041039
FGNC-1 1 0.019127 0.022361 0.033562 0.045648 0.056147 65
2 0.016021 0.019010 0.030256 0.042990 0.054338
3 0.015956 0.016997 0.029846 0.039451 0.050007
FGNC-2 1 0.016663 0.020705 0.030095 0.041730 0.049014 81
2 0.013136 0.016859 0.027814 0.038900 0.046581
3 0.011295 0.014021 0.023694 0.037892 0.046001

Table 9
Comparison between numerical and experimental natural frequency of 3D printed samples under no-load conditions.
Composition Mode Natural frequency (Hz)

Experimental Numerical Difference (%)

HDPE 1 136.70 138.91 1.59

2 339.66 359.24 5.45
3 600.55 637.27 5.76
H0.5 1 146.50 147.32 0.56
2 361.69 387.42 6.64
3 612.91 640.09 4.25
H1 1 160.80 162.14 0.83
2 376.24 400.11 5.96
3 638.56 680.03 6.09
H3 1 181.37 182.70 0.73
2 406.46 425.46 4.46
3 673.96 706.89 4.66
H5 1 192.94 193.36 0.22
2 428.79 450.19 4.75
3 721.58 751.33 3.96
FGNC-1 1 185.69 188.17 1.32
2 412.90 432.58 4.55
3 679.26 700.62 3.05
FGNC-2 1 199.86 204.09 2.07
2 436.13 457.25 4.62
3 725.23 756.02 4.07

available data. The 3D printed NCs and FGNCs are compared for density
with thermoplastic composites prepared by 3D printing and thermo­
setting composites prepared using the hand lay-up method
[59,65,68,76]. Fig. 17 shows the chart between different composites for
buckling load and density. This comparative study shows that the 3D
printed H5 NC and FGNC-2 have higher mechanical buckling strength
than the B1 and B2 natural fiber reinforced composites prepared by hand
lay-up [59]. It is also found that the density of the 3D printed NCs and
FGNCs is lower than the thermosetting foams and natural fiber rein­
forced composites [59,76], making them to be explored in lightweight
applications like in marine and naval structures [68].
4. Conclusions
The functionalized MWCNTs are successfully reinforced with HDPE
to obtain functionalized MWCNTs/HDPE NCs. Subsequently, the NC
filaments are successfully extruded. Finally, the functionalized
MWCNTs/HDPE based NCs and FGNCs are successfully additvely man­
ufactured at once without any warpage and defects, and investigated for
buckling and dynamic responses. The results are summarized below:
• The SEM analysis reveals the seamless bonding between the layers,
across different graded compositions, and the constituent elements.
• The buckling strength of 3D printed NCs and FGNCs increases with
increased functionalized MWCNT content.
• Pcr of H0.5, H1, H3, and H5, calculated from the DTM and MBC
method, increased by 16.40, 19.49, 44.03 and 79.03 %, and 15.95,
18.81, 43.90 and 79.13 %, respectively, than HDPE.
• Pcr of FGNC-1 and FGNC-2, calculated from DTM and MBC methods,
increased by 54.38 and 91.34 %, and 54.62 and 90.62 %, respec­
tively, than HDPE.
• The H5 and FGNC-2 displayed the highest buckling strength
compared to the neat HDPE among 3D printed NCs and FGNCs.

15
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

5 5
HDPE FGNC-1
4 H0.5 4 FGNC-2
H1
3 H3 3
H5
2 2

1 1
=66
=45
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Load (N) Load (N)
(a) (b)
Fig. 15. Representative plots of VCT to evaluate Pcr of 3D printed (a) HDPE and NCs and (b) FGNCs.

Fig. 16. Comparison of Pcr of 3D printed (a) HDPE and NC, and (b) FGNC samples calculated using DTM, MBC and VCT methods.

• Pcr calculated from DTM, MBC and VCT methods exhibited good
agreement.
• The natural frequency of the 3D printed NCs and FGNCs increases
with the functionalized MWCNTs loading while decreases with an
increase in compressive load.
• The damping factor of the 3D printed NCs and FGNCs decrease with
filler loading while observed to be increasing with a rise in
compressive load compared to HDPE.
• The experimental and numerical findings are observed to be in very
good agreement.
• The property chart reveals the superior performance of H5 NC and
FGNC-2 compared to thermosetting composites.
The concurrent additive manufacturing of the functionalized
MWCNTs/HDPE based NCs and FGNCs for mechanical buckling and
dynamic behavior is significant in designing and developing geometri­
cally complex and integrated structures/components for static, dynamic
and weight-sensitive applications in automotive, aerospace, defense and
marine industries. The current work is limited to the AM of the func­
tionalized MWCNTs/HDPE based NC and FGNC beams for mechanical
buckling and free vibration studies. Nonetheless, authors are exploring
plain and functionally graded NCs as core in sandwich construction that
can be 3D printed all at once for higher mechanical buckling and
dynamic performance as compared to the conventionally manufactured
counterparts.
Data availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sumodh Kumar: Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original
draft. M.R. Ramesh: Writing – review & editing. P. Jeyaraj: Resources,
Writing – review & editing. Mrityunjay Doddamani: Conceptualiza­
tion, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

16
S. Kumar et al. Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031

Bharath H.S., 2020 H

600 Bharath H.S., 2020 H-20
Bharath H.S., 2020 H-40
Bharath H.S., 2020 H-60
500 Waddar, 2018 E-0
Waddar, 2018 E-20
Waddar, 2018 E-40
Buckling Load (N) 400 Waddar, 2018 E-60
Rajesh, 2017 B1
Rajesh, 2017 B2
300 Rajesh, 2017 B3
Rajesh, 2017 B4
Rajesh, 2017 P
200 Dileep, 2021 FGF-1
Dileep, 2021 FGF-2
Dileep, 2021 FGF-3
Present work, HDPE
100
Present work, H0.5
Present work, H1
Present work, H3
0 Present work, H5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Present work, FGNC-1
Density (kg/m3) Present work, FGNC-2
Fig. 17. Representative plot of buckling load of different composites as a density function [59,65,68,76].

References [18] Doddamani MR, et al. Behavior of sandwich beams with functionally graded
rubber core in three point bending. Polym Compos 2011;32(10):1541–51.
[19] Cadek M, Coleman JN, Barron V, Hedicke K, Blau WJ. Morphological and
[1] Singh AK, Saltonstall B, Patil B, Hoffmann N, Doddamani M, Gupta N. Additive
mechanical properties of carbon-nanotube-reinforced semicrystalline and
manufacturing of syntactic foams: Part 2: Specimen printing and mechanical
amorphous polymer composites. Appl Phys Lett 2002;81(27):5123–5.
property characterization. JOM 2018;70(3):310–4.
[20] Eitan A, Fisher FT, Andrews R, Brinson LC, Schadler LS. Reinforcement
[2] Lee JY, An J, Chua CK. Fundamentals and applications of 3D printing for novel
mechanisms in MWCNT-filled polycarbonate. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(9):
materials. Appl Mater Today 2017;7:120–33.
1162–73.
[3] Yan Y, Ke H, Yang J, Uher C, Tang X. Fabrication and thermoelectric properties of
[21] Salvetat J-P, Bonard J-M, Thomson NH, Kulik AJ, Forro L, Benoit W, Zuppiroli L.
n-type CoSb2. 85Te0. 15 using selective laser melting. ACS Appl Mater Interf 2018;
Mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes. Appl Phys A 1999;69(3):255–60.
10(16):13669–74.
[22] Treacy MJ, Ebbesen TW, Gibson JM. Exceptionally high Young’s modulus observed
[4] HS B, Bonthu D, Prabhakar P, Doddamani M. Three-dimensional printed
for individual carbon nanotubes. Nature 1996;381(6584):678–80.
lightweight composite foams. ACS omega 2020;5(35):22536–50.
[23] Fornes TD, Baur JW, Sabba Y, Thomas EL. Morphology and properties of melt-spun
[5] Fateri M, Kaouk A, Cowley A, Siarov S, Palou MV, González FG, Marchant R,
polycarbonate fibers containing single-and multi-wall carbon nanotubes. Polymer
Cristoforetti S, Sperl M. Feasibility study on additive manufacturing of recyclable
2006;47(5):1704–14.
objects for space applications. Addit Manuf 2018;24:400–4.
[24] Tang W, Santare MH, Advani SG. Melt processing and mechanical property
[6] Gill SS, Arora H, Sheth V. On the development of Antenna feed array for space
characterization of multi-walled carbon nanotube/high density polyethylene
applications by additive manufacturing technique. Addit Manuf 2017;17:39–46.
(MWNT/HDPE) composite films. Carbon 2003;41(14):2779–85.
[7] Schwarzer E, Holtzhausen S, Scheithauer U, Ortmann C, Oberbach T, Moritz T,
[25] Sabet M, Soleimani H. Mechanical and electrical properties of low density
Michaelis A. Process development for additive manufacturing of functionally
polyethylene filled with carbon nanotubes. IOP Publishing; 2014.
graded alumina toughened zirconia components intended for medical implant
[26] Bose S, Bhattacharyya AR, Bondre AP, Kulkarni AR, Pötschke P. Rheology,
application. J Eur Ceram Soc 2019;39(2–3):522–30.
electrical conductivity, and the phase behavior of cocontinuous PA6/ABS blends
[8] Javaid M, Haleem A. Additive manufacturing applications in medical cases: a
with MWNT: Correlating the aspect ratio of MWNT with the percolation threshold.
literature based review. Alex J Med 2018;54(4):411–22.
J Polym Sci B 2008;46(15):1619–31.
[9] Saltzman D, Bichnevicius M, Lynch S, Simpson TW, Reutzel EW, Dickman C,
[27] Castillo FY, Socher R, Krause B, Headrick R, Grady BP, Prada-Silvy R, Pötschke P.
Martukanitz R. Design and evaluation of an additively manufactured aircraft heat
Electrical, mechanical, and glass transition behavior of polycarbonate-based
exchanger. Appl Therm Eng 2018;138:254–63.
nanocomposites with different multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Polymer 2011;52
[10] Huang R, Riddle M, Graziano D, Warren J, Das S, Nimbalkar S, Cresko J,
(17):3835–45.
Masanet E. Energy and emissions saving potential of additive manufacturing: the
[28] Pandey G, Thostenson ET. Carbon nanotube-based multifunctional polymer
case of lightweight aircraft components. J Clean Prod 2016;135:1559–70.
nanocomposites. Polym Rev 2012;52(3):355–416.
[11] Noorani, R., Rapid prototyping: principles and applications. 2006: John Wiley &
[29] Xu X, et al. Extracting elastic modulus at different strain rates and temperatures
Sons Incorporated.
from dynamic mechanical analysis data: a study on nanocomposites. Compos B Eng
[12] Bharath Kumar BR, Doddamani M, Zeltmann SE, Gupta N, Gurupadu S,
2019;159:346–54.
Sailaja RRN. Effect of particle surface treatment and blending method on flexural
[30] Stan F, et al. On the 3D printability of multi-walled carbon nanotube/high density
properties of injection-molded cenosphere/HDPE syntactic foams. J Mater Sci
polyethylene composites. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2019.
2016;51(8):3793–805.
[31] Liu Y, Asare E, Porwal H, Barbieri E, Goutianos S, Evans J, et al. The effect of
[13] Bharath HS, Bonthu D, Prabhakar P, Doddamani M. Three-dimensional printed
conductive network on positive temperature coefficient behaviour in conductive
lightweight composite foams. ACS omega 2020;5(35):22536.
polymer composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2020;139:106074.
[14] Patil B, Kumar BB, Bontha S, Balla VK, Powar S, Kumar VH, Suresha SN,
[32] Behera RP, Rawat P, Tiwari SK, Singh KK. A brief review on the mechanical
Doddamani M. Eco-friendly lightweight filament synthesis and mechanical
properties of Carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites. Mater Today: Proc
characterization of additively manufactured closed cell foams. Compos Sci Technol
2020;22:2109–17.
2019;183:107816.
[33] Sepet H, Tarakcioglu N, Misra RDK. Investigation of mechanical, thermal and
[15] Jeyachandran P, et al. Mechanical behaviour of additively manufactured bioactive
surface properties of nanoclay/HDPE nanocomposites produced industrially by
glass/high density polyethylene composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020;
melt mixing approach. J Compos Mater 2016;50(22):3105–16.
108:103830.
[34] Kanagaraj S, Varanda FR, Zhiltsova TV, Oliveira MS, Simões JA. Mechanical
[16] Beesetty P, Patil B, Doddamani M. Mechanical behavior of additively manufactured
properties of high density polyethylene/carbon nanotube composites. Compos Sci
nanoclay/HDPE nanocomposites. Compos Struct 2020;247:112442.
Technol 2007;67(15–16):3071–7.
[17] Doddamani M, et al. Dynamic response of fly ash reinforced functionally graded
[35] Chrissafis K, Paraskevopoulos KM, Tsiaoussis I, Bikiaris D. Comparative study of
rubber composite sandwiches - a Taguchi approach. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2011;3
the effect of different nanoparticles on the mechanical properties, permeability,
(1):17.

17
S. Kumar et al.
and thermal degradation mechanism of HDPE. J Appl Polym Sci 2009;114(3):
1606–18.
[36] Bharath HS, Bonthu D, Gururaja S, Prabhakar P, Doddamani M. Flexural response
of 3D printed sandwich composite. Compos Struct 2021;263:113732.
[37] Chrissafis K, Antoniadis G, Paraskevopoulos KM, Vassiliou A, Bikiaris DN.
Comparative study of the effect of different nanoparticles on the mechanical
properties and thermal degradation mechanism of in situ prepared poly
(ε-caprolactone) nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67(10):2165–74.
[38] Kumar BB, Doddamani M, Zeltmann SE, Gupta N, Ramesh MR, Ramakrishna S.
Processing of cenosphere/HDPE syntactic foams using an industrial scale polymer
injection molding machine. Mater Des 2016;92:414–23.
[39] Bharath Kumar BR, Zeltmann SE, Doddamani M, Gupta N, Gurupadu S,
Sailaja RRN. Effect of cenosphere surface treatment and blending method on the
tensile properties of thermoplastic matrix syntactic foams. J Appl Polym Sci 2016;
133(35).
[40] Fouad H, Elleithy R, Al-Zahrani SM, Ali MAH. Characterization and processing of
high density polyethylene/carbon nano-composites. Mater Des 2011;32(4):
1974–80.
[41] Di W, Zhang G, Xu J, Peng Y, Wang X, Xie Z. Positive-temperature-coefficient/
negative-temperature-coefficient effect of low-density polyethylene filled with a
mixture of carbon black and carbon fiber. J Polym Sci B 2003;41(23):3094–101.
[42] Jayavardhan ML, Doddamani M. Quasi-static compressive response of compression
molded glass microballoon/HDPE syntactic foam. Compos B Eng 2018;149:
165–77.
[43] Doddamani M. Influence of microballoon wall thickness on dynamic mechanical
analysis of closed cell foams. Mater Res Expr 2020;6(12):125348.
[44] Adhikary KB, Park CB, Islam MR, Rizvi GM. Effects of lubricant content on
extrusion processing and mechanical properties of wood flour-high-density
polyethylene composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2011;24(2):155–71.
[45] Amoroso L, Heeley EL, Ramadas SN, McNally T. Crystallisation behaviour of
composites of HDPE and MWCNTs: The effect of nanotube dispersion, orientation
and polymer deformation. Polymer 2020;201:122587.
[46] Dabees S, Tirth V, Mohamed A, Kamel BHM. Wear performance and mechanical
properties of MWCNT/HDPE nanocomposites for gearing applications. J Mater Res
Technol 2021;12:2476–88.
[47] Tahir SI, Chikh A, Tounsi A, Al-Osta MA, Al-Dulaijan SU, Al-Zahrani MM. Wave
propagation analysis of a ceramic-metal functionally graded sandwich plate with
different porosity distributions in a hygro-thermal environment. Compos Struct
2021;269:114030.
[48] Kim J, Reddy JN. Analytical solutions for bending, vibration, and buckling of FGM
plates using a couple stress-based third-order theory. Compos Struct 2013;103:
86–98.
[49] Li X, Li L, Hu Y, Ding Z, Deng W. Bending, buckling and vibration of axially
functionally graded beams based on nonlocal strain gradient theory. Compos Struct
2017;165:250–65.
[50] Huan DT, Tu TM, Quoc TH. Analytical solutions for bending, buckling and
vibration analysis of functionally graded cylindrical panel. Vietnam J Sci Technol
2017;55(5):587–97.
[51] Sofiyev A, Kuruoglu N. Buckling and vibration of shear deformable functionally
graded orthotropic cylindrical shells under external pressures. Thin-Walled Struct
2014;78:121–30.
[52] Sofiyev A. The buckling and vibration analysis of coating-FGM-substrate conical
shells under hydrostatic pressure with mixed boundary conditions. Compos Struct
2019;209:686–93.
[53] Rajasekhar K, Babu VS, Davidson MJ. Interfacial microstructure and properties of
Al-Cu functionally graded materials fabricated by powder metallurgy method.
Mater Today: Proc 2021;46:9212–6.
[54] Matějíček J, Kavka T, Mušálek R, Ctibor P, Medřický J, Vilémová M, Nevrlá B,
Degot S, Denoirjean A. Tungsten-steel composites and FGMs prepared by argon-
shrouded plasma spraying. Surf Coat Technol 2021;406:126746.
18
Composite Structures 316 (2023) 117031
[55] Zeng Y, Lu G, Wang H, Du J, Ying Z, Liu C. Positive temperature coefficient
thermistors based on carbon nanotube/polymer composites. Sci Rep 2014;4(1):
1–7.
[56] Barone C, Pagano S, Neitzert HC. Transport and noise spectroscopy of MWCNT/
HDPE composites with different nanotube concentrations. J Appl Phys 2011;110
(11):113716.
[57] Kingston C, Zepp R, Andrady A, Boverhof D, Fehir R, Hawkins D, Roberts J,
Sayre P, Shelton B, Sultan Y, Vejins V. Release characteristics of selected carbon
nanotube polymer composites. Carbon 2014;68:33–57.
[58] Du J, Bai J, Cheng H. The present status and key problems of carbon nanotube
based polymer composites. Express Polym Lett 2007;1(5):253–73.
[59] Rajesh M, Pitchaimani J. Experimental investigation on buckling and free vibration
behavior of woven natural fiber fabric composite under axial compression. Compos
Struct 2017;163:302–11.
[60] Darvizeh M, Darvizeh A, Ansari R, Alijani A. Pre-and post-buckling analysis of
functionally graded beams subjected to statically mechanical and thermal loads.
Sci Iran 2015;22(3):778–91.
[61] Gunasekaran V, Pitchaimani J, Chinnapandi LBM. Acoustic radiation and
transmission loss of FG-Graphene composite plate under nonuniform edge loading.
Euro J Mech-A/Solids 2021;88:104249.
[62] Ramesh R, et al. Study of free vibration characteristics of carbon epoxy based
composite beams. Applied mechanics and materials. Trans Tech Publ; 2015.
[63] Waddar S, Pitchaimani J, Doddamani M, Barbero E. Ever Buckling and vibration
behaviour of syntactic foam core sandwich beam with natural fiber composite
facings under axial compressive loads. Compos B Eng 2019;175:107133.
[64] Gilorkar A, et al. Thermal buckling of sisal and glass hybrid woven composites:
experimental investigation. Compos Part C: Open Access 2020;2:100012.
[65] Bharath HS, Sawardekar A, Waddar S, Jeyaraj P, Doddamani M. Mechanical
behavior of 3D printed syntactic foam composites. Compos Struct 2020;254:
112832.
[66] Bharath HS, Waddar S, Bekinal SI, Jeyaraj P, Doddamani M. Effect of axial
compression on dynamic response of concurrently printed sandwich. Compos
Struct 2021;259:113223.
[67] Kumar A, Gunasekaran V, Pitchaimani J. Acoustic response behavior of porous 3D
graphene foam plate. Applied Acoustics 2020;169:107431.
[68] Dileep B, Prakash R, Bharath HS, Jeyaraj P, Doddamani M. Dynamic behavior of
concurrently printed functionally graded closed cell foams. Compos Struct 2021;
275:114449.
[69] Kumar S, Ramesh MR, Doddamani M, Rangappa SM, Siengchin S. Mechanical
characterization of 3D printed MWCNTs/HDPE nanocomposites. Polymer Testing
2022;114:107703.
[70] Kumar S, Ramesh MR, Doddamani M. Compressive behavior of 3D printed
MWCNT/HDPE nanocomposites. Compos Commun 2022:101317.
[71] Bharath Kumar B, Zeltmann SE, Doddamani M, Gupta N, Gurupadu S, Sailaja RRN.
Effect of cenosphere surface treatment and blending method on the tensile
properties of thermoplastic matrix syntactic foams. J Appl Polym Sci 2016;133
(35).
[72] Kumar S, Ramesh MR, Doddamani M. Recycling potential of MWCNTs/HDPE
nanocomposite filament: 3D printing and mechanical characterization. J Mater
Cycles Waste Manage 2023:1–11.
[73] Kumar S, Ramesh MR, Doddamani M. Investigation on hardness, impact, and
compression responses of additively manufactured functionally graded
nanocomposites. Compos Commun 2023:101545.
[74] Bonthu D, Bharath HS, Gururaja S, Prabhakar P, Doddamani M. 3D printing of
syntactic foam cored sandwich composite. Compos Part C: Open Access 2020;3:
100068.
[75] Gupta N, Gupta SK, Mueller BJ. Analysis of a functionally graded particulate
composite under flexural loading conditions. Mater Sci Eng: A 2008;485(1–2):
439–47.
[76] Waddar S, Jeyaraj P, Doddamani M. Influence of axial compressive loads on
buckling and free vibration response of surface-modified fly ash cenosphere/epoxy
syntactic foams. J Compos Mater 2018;52(19):2621–30.