Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Next Materials
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/next-materials

Thermal buckling behavior of 3D printed foams: Plain, graded, and

sandwich variants
Bonthu Dileep a, P. Jeyaraj a, Mrityunjay Doddamani b, *
a
Advanced Manufacturing Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal 575025, 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 present work focuses on the experimental investigation of the thermal buckling response of 3D printed
Thermal Buckling functionally graded glass micro balloon (GMB) reinforced high density polyethylene (HDPE) composites and
3D Printing their respective sandwiches under non-uniform heating conditions. The influences of GMB loading and its graded
Foam
composition on temperature distribution are analyzed. The reinforcement of hollow GMB rendered lower
HDPE
thermal conductivity due to enhanced thermal resistance with an increase in filler percentage. An increased
thermal buckling strength is also observed. Due to their non-uniform thermal expansion, functionally graded
sandwich beams exhibited less deflection than plain beams. Among the cases of three heating conditions (One
end heating: case-1, Center heating: case-2, both end heating: case-3), maximum deflection is observed in case 2
while the minimum deflection is noted in case 1. These printed foams can be utilized for lightweight thermal
insulating pipes.

Introduction properties, decrease warpage-related issues, and suffice weight reduc­

Polymers are widely explored owing to their lightweightness, pro­
cessing ease, compatibility with chemicals, and resistance to corrosion
in weight-sensitive structural applications, including aircraft, marine,
automobiles, etc. [1–3]. So far, much research has been carried out on
traditional polymer manufacturing techniques like injection and
compression molding [4,5]. These methods require high tooling costs to
manufacture critical components. However, the development of modern
Three-dimensional printing (3DP) technologies like fused filament
fabrication (FFF) shows its significance in simplifying the manufacturing
of essential components with good cost-cutting efficiency. These
cutting-edge technologies help in minimizing material wastage and
energy consumption. Many materials like polymethyl methacrylate
(PMMA) [6], polycarbonate (PC) [7], polylactic acid (PLA) [8],
acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) [9] are being explored to check
their adaptability in fused filament deposition. Further, the continued
drive in advanced micro and nanoparticle-based composite materials
allowed researchers to exploit their adaptability towards FFF. The de­
mand for different micro/nanoparticle-based polymer composites for
specified applications makes researchers explore their processing limits
[10]. The hollow particle-based fillers help improve the mechanical
tion potential [11,12]. Hollow GMBs as fillers are explored in this work
owing to their capability towards weight reduction finding their place in
marine applications and realizing low density pipes. These fillers have
good crushing strength in addition to stiffness enhancement [13–15].
These micro-sized filler based closed cell syntactic foams act as thermal
insulators. Such thermal insulating property is because of the filler’s
hollowness, which offers more heat flow resistance. These
polymer-based composite properties mainly depend on the filler prop­
erties, a ratio of filler-matrix composition, and filler-matrix interface
strength. The strength primarily depends on the stress transfer between
the filler and the matrix [16–19]. The stress when such material systems
are loaded can be effectively transferred if the constituent materials are
surface treated. Compared to monolithic material, composite material
shows two significant impending advantages. The primary advantage of
polymer composites is they can enhance energy-absorbing capacity and
make the component functionally attractive by making it lightweight [3,
19–23]. Second, they offer flexibility for engineers in altering properties
to achieve desired products by varying composition ratios. Nano
filler-based polymer composite changes physical and mechanical prop­
erties in multiple ways. For example, the component’s stiffness can be
increased by adding micro-sized particles [24–26], such as inorganic

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxmate.2023.100035
Received 22 November 2022; Received in revised form 10 July 2023; Accepted 31 August 2023
Available online 25 November 2023
2949-8228/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
B. Dileep et al.
Fig. 1. (a) 3D Printed FGF-3 (b) layer diffusion and (c) Interface of HDPE and foam (H20) and (d) Interface of H40-H60-H.
particles, which are rigid and have high crushing strength compared to
the polymer matrix. The composite beams are characterized using
traditional methods like injection, compressing moulding, and hand
layup techniques. Kamarian et al. [27] worked on predicting the thermal
buckling temperature of MWCNT reinforced epoxy beams developed
using the hand layup method. Results showed that, the reinforcing
MWCNT enhanced buckling temperature by 35–42 %. Liu et al. [28]
studied the thermal buckling phenomenon of axially restrained columns.
Results showed that beams behave like imperfect columns due to
non-uniform stiffness and moments caused by eccentric loading. The
analytical and numerical works are also carried out under different
thermal loading conditions [29,30]. Nevertheless, experimental studies
of plain and graded beams developed using 3D printing technologies like
FFF are not yet explored.
Many aeronautical parts are manufactured using 3D printing tech­
nologies [31–33]. Hence, checking the adaptability of the synthesized
hollow particle-based filler composites to 3D printing technologies,
particularly FFF, and the processing parameters’ dependence on thermal
and structural phenomena needs to be explored. Many of the thermal
properties of composites, like thermal conductivity, rate of heat loss, and
gas emissions, are well explored [34–36]. Nonetheless, the thermal
buckling phenomenon of 3D-printed syntactic foams is yet to be inves­
tigated. Beams developed by varying their property along length or
thickness direction are known as functionally graded materials (FGM)
[37,38]. Japanese scientists invented the concept of functionally graded
beams for their aerospace project [39]. Such an FGM beam helps avoid
2
Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035
the interface’s sharp property transition. Many analytical and numerical
works are reported for FGM’s [40–51]. Very few works are carried out
on manufacturing the FGM through 3DP and hence explored in this
paper. In the presented work, plain core, functionally graded foams
(FGFs’), and their respective sandwiches are 3D printed by varying the
material property along the thickness direction. Sandwich beams are
realized all at once by depositing the HDPE skin over the plain and
graded cores. The experimental route adopted to investigate the thermal
buckling phenomenon, critical thermal buckling temperature, and
deflection patterns of the printed sandwiches.
Material and methods
Hollow GMB of iM30k grade supplied by 3 M Corporation,
Singapore, are used as fillers. These Hollow GMBs have an average
diameter of 15.3 µm, a density of 0.6 g/cm3, crushing strength of 27,000
psi, and a wall thickness of 1.4 µm [52]. HDPE (HD50MA180) from
IOCL, Mumbai, India, having a melt flow index of 20 gm/10 min, density
of 0.950 gm/cm3, Vicat softening point as 124 ℃, and tensile strength of
22 MPa is used as a matrix material. Composites are developed by
mixing hollow GMB fillers of 20, 40, and 60 vol percentages with HDPE
matrix and are coded as H20, H40, and H60. These composite pellets are
further used to extrude three types of Hollow GMB based foam filaments
[11]. Extruded filaments are used as a feedstock material for FFD-based
3D printers to manufacture all the samples.
B. Dileep et al.
Fig. 2. Thermal buckling experimental setup.
3D-printing
3D printer, which works on the FFF principle, bought from AHA 3D
Innovations, is used for printing the samples. The printer has two nozzles
(N-1 and N-2) of 0.5 mm in diameter each. All samples of dimensions
270 × 12.5 × 4 mm are produced with a 100 % infill at a printing speed
of 35 mm/min. The printing temperature and extrusion multiplier for H,
H20, and H40 are kept at 225 ◦ C, 225 ◦ C, and 245 ◦ C, respectively. Low
MFI and high viscosity of H60 necessitate the processing temperature to
be 245 ◦ C with a 1.2 extrusion multiplier. The other printing parameters,
like raster angle, bed temperature, and chamber temperature, are
maintained at 45 ◦ , 120 ◦ C, and 75 ◦ C [12]. Initially, the distance be­
tween two nozzles is precisely calculated and recorded as an offset value
in Simplify 3D, the slicing program utilized in this study. The printing
strategy adopted for graded composition is the sequential deposition of
the layers having varying GMBs in HDPE matrix. The printer is started
by loading N-1 and N-2 with H and H20. Initially, N-1 deposits H for 1
Fig. 3. Heater position in (a) Case-1, (b) Case-2 and (c) Case-3.
3
Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035
mm, followed by N-2 depositing H20 for the required thickness. Sub­
sequently, the deposition head is lifted by 50 mm by pausing the ma­
chine, and H40 and H60 are loaded in N2 and N1. Both nozzles are
purged to ensure the proper flow of material, and the nozzle head is reset
to the position where it was paused. Subsequently, the printing is started
with H40 using N2 until a 1 mm layer of H40 is deposited over H20. N-1
comes into position for printing H60. The similar methodology is fol­
lowed for printing all functionally graded compositions [FGF-1⟶H
top-H20-H40bottom, FGF-2⟶H20top-H40-H60bottom, FGF-3⟶Htop-H
20-H40-H60bottom and their respective sandwiches [FGSF-1⟶Htop-­
skin-H-H20-H40-Hbottom-skin, FGSF-2⟶Htop-skin-H20-H40-H60-Hbottom-­
skin, FGSF-3⟶Htop-skin-H-H20-H40-H60-Hbottom-skin]. A pictorial
representation of FGF-3 is presented in Fig. 1a. The frequency of the
filament replacement depends on the material gradation in the sample to
be 3D printed. Post 3D printing, SEM analysis is carried out on the
freeze-fractured samples to investigate the bonding between the layers
and filler sustainability. Fig. 1b shows that the layers are properly fused
B. Dileep et al. Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035

Table 1
Buckling temperature of 3D printed samples.
Sample Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
Type (End-Heating) (Centre-Heating) (Both-End-
Heating)
Tcr Tcr-1 Tcr-2 Tcr

H 46.95 34.7 52.64 36.86

H20 67.22 39.09 48.47 41.98
H40 79.8 52.76 72.19 52.47
H60 (local- (local- —— 70.22
softening) softening)
SH20 59.65 41.76 —— 55.58
SH40 66 48.68 —— 57.95
SH60 72.4 69.67 —— 59.08
FGF-1 47.5 39.93 —— 40.76
FGF-2 55.54 37.34 —— 55.29
FGF-3 (local- 50.94 —— (local-Softening)
softening)
FGSF-1 (local- 49.8 —— (Local-softening)
softening)
FGSF-2 (local- 56.47 —— (local-softening)
softening)
FGSF-3 (local- (local- —— (local-softening)
softening) softening)

*Tcr: critical buckling temperature.

differential transducer (LVDT) with ± 25.4 mm stroke length is used.

Fig. 4. Representative picture of (a) sensor arrangement to measure tempera­
ture across cross-section (b) SEM of syntactic foam, and (c) Heat flow with
respect to GMB percentage.
without any delamination. It is also observed that there is no GMB
failure during the entire processing cycle adopted for 3D printing
(Fig. 1c). Nevertheless, bonding between the filler and matrix at some
regions is noted to be poor, creating voids. These voids help in
enhancing the conduction and convection resistance and also help in
increasing weight-saving potential. The interface of H40-H60-H is pre­
sented in Fig. 1d, implying the seamless diffusion of the layers.
Thermal buckling
A thermal buckling setup is developed in-house for the current work
to predict the thermal buckling load and deflection patterns of plain,
graded, and their respective sandwiches (Fig. 2). In this experimental
setup, the beam is subjected to clamped boundary conditions by fixing it
in a steel frame. Thermal load is applied using a 230 V/1000 W single-
tube short-wave infrared (IR) heater. To subject the beam to non-
uniform thermal loading conditions, the position of IR- heater is
placed at one end of the beam in case-1 (one-end-heating), a center of
the beam in case-2 (center-heating) and at both ends of the beam in case-
3 (both-end-heating) as presented in Fig. 3a, b and c. To measure the
lateral deflection of the beams MVL7 model of linear variable
This LVDT can operate at − 50 to 125 ◦ C temperature range. Thermal
sensors are fixed to the sample to measure the temperature at different
positions. In-house code is developed using Lab-view to employ the relay
unit to control the on and off condition of the IR-heater as per set point
and current temperature reading. The temperature versus deflection
data is taken as output using NI9481 DAQ.
Results and Discussion
The primary objective of this work is to investigate (1) the Influence
of the hollow GMB reinforcement on temperature (heat) distribution (2)
Effect of thermal load position on the lateral deflection of 3DP plain,
graded, and their respective sandwich composite beams and (3) signif­
icance of material gradation. The beam under clamped-clamped
boundary conditions is subjected to thermal load using IR heater. As
the displacement at both ends is restricted, thermal stresses are devel­
oped in the beam, and the deflection creeps in. As the maximum
deflection in the fundamental mode is mostly observed in the middle of
the beam, LVDT is fixed at the center of one side of the beam surface
(Fig. 2). As the beam thickness is relatively less (4 mm), thermal sensors
are placed on front and back surfaces, as shown in Fig. 4 (temperature
variation along the thickness direction). The data of DAQ indicates a
40–45 ◦ C variation. This is due to the lower thermal conductivity of
hollow GMB particles (Fig. 4b and Fig. 4c). The hollow space inside the
filler particles offers more resistance to heat flow than the matrix ma­
terial, resulting in a high thermal gradient between the surfaces exposed
to a heater. The scanning electron microscopic image of Hollow GMB
reinforced HDPE composite is shown in Fig. 4b. Three types of buckling
phenomenon are observed when the sample is subjected to different
thermal loading conditions: normal buckling, secondary snap-through

Fig. 5. Represents images of case-1 (a) Heating position and (b) temperature distribution.

4
B. Dileep et al.
Fig. 6. Temperature versus deformation graphs of case-1 for (a) Plain (b) Plain-Sandwich (c) FGF’s and (d) FGSF’s.
Fig. 7. local Softening of H60.
buckling, and gradual softening with minor vibration. When a sample is
heated from one of its faces, non-uniform temperature distribution
creeps in, resulting in non-uniform stiffness along the thickness direc­
tion. Along with this, the thermal moment may also be developed,
creating a bending phenomenon with the increase in temperature. The
eccentric moment will also cause the shift of the neutral axis from the
centroid of the sample due to non-uniform temperature distribution
[53]. The column bends like an imperfect beam and may not buckle like
the classical Euler buckling phenomenon.
Case-1 (End heating condition)
The temperature profile along the length direction for case-1 is
shown in Fig. 5. The results show that the sample exhibited a
5
Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035
dimensional buckling phenomenon, and the critical thermal buckling
temperature (Tcr) values of all 3D printed samples for case-1 are listed in
Table 1. Temperature versus deflection graphs is presented in Fig. 6.
Among the plain samples, i.e., H, H20, H40, and H60, the neat H sample
exhibited less buckling temperature of 46.95 ◦ C due to the lower heat
resistance and comparatively higher coefficient of thermal expansion
(CTE). The CTE values of H, H20, H40, and H60 are 135 ± 3.29 × (10− 6
per ◦ C), 106 ± 3.85 × (10− 6 per ◦ C), 88 ± 2.65 × (10− 6 per ◦ C), and 75
± 1.15 × (10− 6 per ◦ C) [52]. The H20 sample initially exhibited resis­
tance to the thermal load at 66.70 ◦ C showing the sudden deflection.
The higher volume percentage of the GMB in H40 and H60 resisted heat
conduction along the length leading to the lower deformation at the
center of the sample. The higher storage modulus of H40 and H60 might
also be one of the reasons for exhibiting the lower deflection [52]. Few
works on foams revealed that the storage modulus increases with an
increase in hollow filler percentage [54]. The temperature rise causes
the thermoplastics to soften, resulting in a loss of stiffness along the
thickness direction (Fig. 7). To increase the stability of the sample under
thermal loading conditions, sandwich samples of all respective cores are
also 3D printed and tested for thermal buckling. The sandwiches of these
respective plain beams exhibited a similar trend. In FGF’s, IR heater is
placed towards the foam layer with a higher filler percentage, i.e., FGF-1
at the H40 phase and FGF-2 and FGF-3 at the H60 phase. As the coef­
ficient of thermal expansion and conductivity are the major parameters
to be considered to analyze thermal effect, the foam layers with lower
CTE and conductivity are placed toward the heater side resulting in heat
flow resistance. Among the FGFs developed by varying material prop­
erties along the thickness direction, FGF-1 and FGF-2 exhibited a
dimensional buckling phenomenon, whereas FGF-3 did not exhibit
visible deformation. This might be due to the phenomenon of elongation
in compound beams where one layer obstructs the motion of the other.
The layer facing the IR heater possesses higher temperatures than other
B. Dileep et al. Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035

Fig. 8. Represents images of case-2 (a) Heating Position and (b) Temperature distribution.

Fig. 9. Temperature versus deformation graphs of case-2 for (a) Snap through buckling (b) Plain (c) Plain-Sandwich (d) FGF’s and (e) FGSF’s.

6
B. Dileep et al.
Fig. 10. Buckling of (a)SH20 (b) FGF-1 and (c) mode-1 buckling shape of FGF-1 and (d) sample with no delamination.
faces. Hence the layers at lower temperatures with different CTE and
thermal conductivity will inhibit the motion of the high-temperature
layers. This phenomenon might result in minimized deflection. The
same phenomenon is observed in FGSF (functionally graded syntactic
foam), inhibiting the deflection and exhibiting localized melting, as seen
in Fig. 6d. This signifies that the stability of the beam is increased post
sandwiching.
Case-2 (Centre-heating)
In this case, IR heater and LVDT are placed opposite each other at the
center of the beam. Once the experiment started, IR heater started
heating the sample slowly, and the heat is transferred from the center to
both clamped ends. The temperature profile along the length direction
for case-2 is shown in Fig. 8. In this case, the sample is directly heated at
the center, the most suspected position, where maximum deflection is
supposed to occur as per mode-1, compared to other cases. The tem­
perature versus deflection graphs are presented in Fig. 9, and the
Fig. 11. Represents images of case-3 (a) Heating position and (b) Temperature distribution.
7
Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035
buckling temperatures of the respective samples of case-2 are listed in
Table 1. The plain samples exhibited snap-through buckling. i.e., when
the sample is heated, initially, due to induced thermal stress, the sample
starts deforming in one direction. After some time, due to the visco­
elastic force regain sample starts reaching its original non-deformed
position, and further heating deflects the sample in the opposite direc­
tion. Fig. 9a shows the temperature versus deflection graph, and the
buckling temperature is calculated using the double tangent method
(Fig. 9a). This snap-through buckling phenomenon is observed due to
the release and restoration of the viscoelastic forces. Sunil et al. [55]
observed this snap-through buckling phenomenon in the
cenosphere-reinforced epoxy-based composite made by hand lay-up
method. Sateesh et al. [56] observed the snap-through buckling phe­
nomenon in 3D printed PLA composite. Amol et al. [57] also observed
similar behavior in sisal and glass woven reinforced epoxy composites
made by hand lay-up method. Moreover, when the sample is heated
from one of its faces, non-uniform temperature distribution will occur,
resulting in non-uniform stiffness along the thickness direction. Along
B. Dileep et al. Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035

Fig. 12. 3DP HDPE sample (a) Before testing (b) while testing and (c) Post buckling.

Fig. 13. Dimensional buckling of H40.
with this, the thermal moment may also develop, which creates a
bending phenomenon with increased temperature. An eccentric moment
will also cause due to the shift of the neutral axis from the sample’s
centroid due to non-uniform temperature distribution. Because of this,
the column bends like an imperfect beam and may not buckle like the
classical Euler buckling phenomenon. Exhibition of the buckling
behavior like an imperfect beam is controlled by sandwiching it with
HDPE skin Fig. 10a. In FGF and FGSF’s due to the variation of CTE value
along the thickness direction, the tensile and compressive forces restrict
and minimize this snap-through buckling, as seen from Fig. 10b. Among
FGFs, FGF-3 exhibited a buckling temperature of 51.7 ◦ C, and in FGSFs,
FGSF-3 exhibited local softening rather than the buckling phenomenon
(Fig. 9e). Comparative results among the foams reveal that the buckling
temperature of H60 is higher than H, H20, and H40 (Fig. 9b), resembling
the enhanced thermal stability of H60. A similar trend is observed in the
sandwich, i.e., SH60 exhibited better buckling temperature (Fig. 9c).
Compared to case-1, case-2 exhibited higher deflection due to the
placement of the heater and LVDT at the critical sample position.

Fig. 14. Temperature versus deformation graphs of case-3 for (a) Plain (b) Plain-Sandwich (c) FGF’s and (d) FGSF’s.

8
B. Dileep et al. Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035

Fig. 15. Thermal buckling procedure for FEA analysis.

Fig. 16. Meshed 3D Model for FEA.

Table 2
Material properties considered for FEA.
Composite Young’s Poisons Coefficient Thermal Density
Modulus ratio (µ) of thermal Conductivity (kg/
(E) (MPa) expansion (K) (Watt/mm mm3)
(CTE ×10− 6) ◦
C)
(◦ C)

H 810.25 0.421 135 ± 3.29 0.00040 927

± 16.73 ± 12
H20 865.56 0.382 106 ± 3.85 0.00033 826
± 17.79 ± 13
H40 1125.68 0.339 88 ± 2.65 0.00029 746
± 12.41 ± 18
H60 1199.26 0.296 75 ± 1.15 0.00024 668
± 11.53 ± 10

Though case-2 exhibited comparatively higher deformation, there is no

delamination between the layers of the graded samples (Figs. 10c and d).

Case-3 (Both-end-heating) Fig. 17. FEA results of Temperature distribution for case-1, case-2 and case-3.

The temperature profile along the length direction for case-3 is
shown in Fig. 11. When the sample was initially fixed in the frame and
started heating, it did not exhibit deflection due to viscoelastic forces
and its storage modulus. These viscoelastic forces release upon
increasing the temperature, and the sample deflects. The behavior of the
HDPE sample from the fixing position to the buckling position (mode-1)
is depicted in Fig. 12. All most all samples of plain, plain-sandwich, and
functionally graded composition exhibited normal buckling phenomena
without much-restoring forces or local melting (Fig. 13). The tempera­
ture versus deflection graphs of all samples are presented in Fig. 14.
From the results of buckling temperature, it is observed that there is a
significant difference in buckling temperatures among different config­
urations of plain and FGFs. In contrast, this difference is not much
observed in sandwiches. These samples exhibited comparatively less
deflection in the present case compared to case 2. These FGSFs showed
minor deflection compared to others, and the temperature versus
deflection appeared slightly wavy. This might be due to the combined
effect of primary restoring viscoelastic forces and secondary non-
uniform tensile and compressive forces caused due to temperature
gradient along the thickness and material property gradation. The
deflection of sandwich beams is comparatively less than the plain core.
The sandwiches outperformed their respective core regarding stability,
which shows its significance in replacing plain beams with functionally
graded sandwich beams.
Finite element analysis
3D printed graded foams are analyzed for predicting temperature
distribution and thermal buckling temperature using finite element
methods (FEM) (Fig. 15). A commercially available Ansys package is
used for performing finite element analysis. Initially, all samples of
270 × 12.5 × 4 mm are modelled, and for graded foams, bonded
connection is activated between the different material layers to restrict
the relative motion. All beams are meshed using Solid 186 element
(Fig. 16). Modelled beam is subjected to fixed-fixed boundary condi­
tions. Steady-state thermal analysis is performed on the respective
beams to predict thermal stress and temperature distribution. Thermal
conductivity (K) values are taken as the input material property to the
analysis (Table 2). Temperature distribution plots of HDPE for case-1,
case-2 and case-3 are mentioned in Fig. 17. Further static structural
analysis is performed to predict mechanical stresses induced due to
thermal load. Material properties like modulus, coefficient of thermal
expansion, and poison ratio are taken as input (Table 2). The obtained
thermal stress and temperature distribution from steady state thermal
analysis are given as load data to this static structural analysis. Further,
this static structural analysis is coupled to buckling analysis to predict
the thermal buckling temperature of beams. Fig. 15 shows the flow chart
of thermo-mechanical based Eigenvalue buckling analysis. The com­
parison of experimental details with numerical results for all the samples
is mentioned in Table 3. Experimental results of HDPE exhibited good
agreement with numerical results for all heating cases. Foams exhibited
a higher deviation percentage in some cases. This is due to the isotropic
material property assumption, geometric imperfections induced in the
sample while 3D printing, and the phenomenon of regain in viscoelastic
forces. Moreover, due to asymmetric material property variation along
the thickness direction, few samples, like FGSFs’ did not exhibit proper

9
B. Dileep et al. Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035

Table 3
Comparison of Experimental buckling temperatures with FEA.
Sample Type Tcr Tcr Tcr
Case-1 (End-Heating) Case-2 (Centre-Heating) Case-3 (Both-End-Heating)

Exp (◦ C) Num (◦ C) Dev (%) Exp (◦ C) Num (◦ C) Dev (%) Exp (◦ C) Num (◦ C) Dev (%)

H 46.95 44.12 6.02 34.7 37.12 6.97 36.86 34.40 6.67

H20 67.22 52.24 22.3 39.09 42.63 9.05 41.98 38.62 8.0
H40 79.80 60.52 24.1 52.76 47.90 9.21 52.47 42.77 18.5
H60 LS 70.72 — LS 53.82 — 70.22 44.67 36.4
SH20 59.65 49.16 17.6 41.76 39.92 4.4 55.58 37.026 33.4
SH40 66.00 52.96 19.8 48.68 41.60 14.5 57.95 38.52 33.5
SH60 72.40 57.98 19.9 69.67 45.94 34.1 59.08 42.77 27.6
FGF-1 47.5 46.92 1.22 39.93 38.68 3.13 40.76 36.84 9.61
FGF-2 55.54 52.69 5.13 37.34 42.16 12.9 55.29 39.64 28.3
FGF-3 LS 52.15 — 50.94 41.90 17.7 LS 38.89 —
FGSF-1 LS 48.60 — 49.80 39.20 21.28 LS 36.66 —
FGSF-2 LS 52.10 — 56.47 41.60 26.33 LS 38.33 —
FGSF-2 LS 51.87 — LS 44.44 — LS 38.72 —

*LS = Local softening

respective sandwich beams. HDPE and GMB-based plain, plain sand­

Fig. 18. Mode-1 of buckled beam under thermal load.
Fig. 19. Comparison of thermal buckling phenomenon among different heat­
ing conditions.
buckling shape but rather exhibited local softening; hence numerical
results of these are not in the scope of this work..
Comparison of Thermal buckling phenomenon
wich, graded, and sandwich of graded foams are successfully 3D printed
without delamination or warpage issues. These foams find application in
lightweight applications like in low density pipes and thermal insulating
applications. These 3D printed samples are subjected to non-uniform
heating conditions by changing the heating position and studying
their response to thermal load (thermal buckling behavior). Three types
of buckling phenomena are observed when the sample is subjected to
different thermal loading conditions: normal buckling, snap-through
buckling, and gradual softening. Among the plain samples, H60
exhibited highest resistance to deflection. This is due to its low CTE and
higher storage modulus. Compared to plain beams, functionally graded
beams and their sandwiches showed lower deflection due to the gradual
variation of CTE along the thickness direction. Further, the snap through
buckling phenomenon can be overcome by sandwiching the plain beams
or grading the material property along the thickness direction. Among
the three cases, case-1 exhibited lower deflection, and case-2 exhibited
comparatively higher deflection. The functionally graded sandwich
beams exhibited superior response compared to plain beams. Further,
replacing the plain HDPE sample with syntactic foam helps in increasing
the thermal resistance for insulation applications. The minimum layer
thickness is dependent on the material gradation. This work can be
further extended by 3D printing the graded foams with symmetric ma­
terial property gradation along the thickness direction with respect to
neutral axis and studying their thermal buckling behaviour.
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.

HDPE samples are considered for comparing the deflection behav­
iour (Fig. 19). Results showed that samples exhibited similar thermal
buckling phenomena in case-1 and case-3, whereas case-2 renders snap-
through buckling. This is due to regain of viscoelastic forces in the
polymer matrix and moments caused due to fixed-fixed boundary con­
ditions. This phenomenon can be controlled by adopting sandwiching
and material gradation techniques. Placing the thermal heater position
at the critical section of the beam in case-2 results in larger deformation.
Due to the applied thermal load at both ends, higher deformation is
observed for case 3 than in case 1.
Conclusion
The presented work investigates 3D Printed plain, graded, and their
References
[1] Volpe Valentina, Lanzillo Sofia, Affinita Giovanni, Villacci Beniamino,
Macchiarolo Innocenzo, P. Roberto, Lightweight high-performance polymer
composite for automotive applications, Polymers 11 (2) (2019) 326.
[2] Nikhil Gupta, Steven E. Zeltmann, Shunmugasamy Vasanth Chakravarthy,
P. Dinesh, Applications of polymer matrix syntactic foams, Jom 66 (2) (2014)
245–254.
[3] P. Jeyachandran, S. Bontha, S. Bodhak, V.K. Balla, B. Kundu, M. Doddamani,
Mechanical behaviour of additively manufactured bioactive glass/high density
polyethylene composites, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 108 (2020), 103830.
[4] M.L. Jayavardhan, B.R. Bharath Kumar, et al., Development of glass microballoon/
HDPE syntactic foams by compression molding, Compos. Part B: Eng. 130 (2017)
119–131.
[5] B.R. Bharath Kumar, Doddamani Zeltmann Steven Eric, Gupta Mrityunjay, et al.,
Effect of cenosphere surface treatment and blending method on the tensile
properties of thermoplastic matrix syntactic foams. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 133 (35)
(2016).

10
B. Dileep et al.
[6] Espalin David, Arcaute Karina, Rodriguez David, Medina Francisco, Posner
Matthew, W. Ryan., Fused deposition modeling of patient-specific
polymethylmethacrylate implants. Rapid Prototyping J., 2010.
[7] Miquel Domingo-Espin, Josep M. Puigoriol-Forcada, Andres-Amador Garcia-
Granada, Jordi Llumà, Salvador Borros, R. Guillermo, Mechanical property
characterization and simulation of fused deposition modeling Polycarbonate parts,
Mater. Des. 83 (2015) 670–677.
[8] Spoerk Martin, Arbeiter Florian, Hrvoje Cajner, Sapkota Janak, H. Clemens,
Parametric optimization of intra-and inter-layer strengths in parts produced by
extrusion-based additive manufacturing of poly (lactic acid), J. Appl. Polym. Sci.
134 (41) (2017) 45401.
[9] Dul Sithiprumnea, Fambri Luca, P. Alessandro, Fused deposition modelling with
ABS–graphene nanocomposites, Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 85 (2016)
181–191.
[10] Civancik-Uslu Didem, Ferrer Laura, Puig Rita, F.-i-P. Pere, Are functional fillers
improving environmental behavior of plastics? A review on LCA studies, Sci. Total
Environ. 626 (2018) 927–940.
[11] H.S. Bharath, Dileep Bonthu, Gururaja Suhasini, Prabhakar Pavana, D. Mrityunjay,
Flexural response of 3D printed sandwich composite, Compos. Struct. 263 (2021),
113732.
[12] Dileep Bonthu, H.S. Bharath, Suhasini Gururaja, Pavana Prabhakar, D. Mrityunjay,
3D printing of syntactic foam cored sandwich composite, Compos. Part C: Open
Access 3 (2020), 100068.
[13] M. Doddamani, Dynamic mechanical analysis of 3D printed eco-friendly
lightweight composite, Compos. Commun. 19 (2020) 177–181.
[14] A.K. Singh, A.J. Deptula, R. Anawal, M. Doddamani, N. Gupta, Additive
manufacturing of three-phase syntactic foams containing glass microballoons and
air pores, JOM 71 (4) (2019) 1520–1527.
[15] R. Pemberton, J. Summerscales, J. Graham-Jones, Marine Composites: Design and
Performance, Elsevier Science, 2018.
[16] Chen Yung-Chih, Lin Hsueh-Chen, L. Yu-Der, The effects of filler content and size
on the properties of PTFE/SiO2 composites, J. Polym. Res. 10 (4) (2003) 247–258.
[17] Fu Shao-Yun, Feng Xi-Qiao, Lauke Bernd, M. Yiu-Wing, Effects of particle size,
particle/matrix interface adhesion and particle loading on mechanical properties of
particulate–polymer composites, Compos. Part B: Eng. 39 (6) (2008) 933–961.
[18] M.R. Doddamani, S.M. Kulkarni, Kishore, Behavior of sandwich beams with
functionally graded rubber core in three point bending, Polym. Compos. 32 (10)
(2011) 1541–1551.
[19] D. Bonthu, H.S. Bharath, S. Gururaja, P. Prabhakar, M. Doddamani, 3D printing of
syntactic foam cored sandwich composite, Compos. Part C: Open Access 3 (2020),
100068.
[20] Dileep Bonthu, D. Mrityunjay, Compressive response of 3D printed graded foams,
Compos. Part C: Open Access 6 (2021), 100181.
[21] Nikhil Gupta, R. William, Comparison of compressive properties of layered
syntactic foams having gradient in microballoon volume fraction and wall
thickness, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A 427 (1–2) (2006) 331–342.
[22] H.S. Ashrith, M. Doddamani, V. Gaitonde, Effect of wall thickness and cutting
parameters on drilling of glass microballoon/epoxy syntactic foam composites,
Compos. Struct. 211 (2019) 318–336.
[23] H.S. Bharath, D. Bonthu, S. Gururaja, P. Prabhakar, M. Doddamani, Flexural
response of 3D printed sandwich composite, Compos. Struct. 263 (2021), 113732.
[24] Cuan-Urquizo Enrique, Álvarez-Trejo Alberto, Robles Gil Andrés, Tejada-
Ortigoza Viridiana, Camposeco-Negrete Carmita, Uribe-Lam Esmeralda, et al.,
Effective stiffness of fused deposition modeling infill lattice patterns made of PLA-
wood material, Polymers 14 (2) (2022) 337.
[25] P. Breunig, V. Damodaran, K. Shahapurkar, S. Waddar, M. Doddamani, P. Jeyaraj,
P. Prabhakar, Dynamic impact behavior of syntactic foam core sandwich
composites, J. Compos. Mater. 54 (4) (2020) 535–547.
[26] H.S. Bharath, S. Waddar, S.I. Bekinal, P. Jeyaraj, M. Doddamani, Effect of axial
compression on dynamic response of concurrently printed sandwich, Compos.
Struct. 259 (2021), 113223.
[27] S. Kamarian, M. Bodaghi, Isfahani R. Barbaz, M. Shakeri, Y. MH, Influence of
carbon nanotubes on thermal expansion coefficient and thermal buckling of
polymer composite plates: experimental and numerical investigations, Mech. Based
Des. Struct. Mach. 49 (2) (2021) 217–232.
[28] L. Liu, G.A. Kardomateas, V. Birman, J.W. Holmes, S.G. J, Thermal buckling of a
heat-exposed, axially restrained composite column, Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 37 (7) (2006) 972–980.
[29] R. Azzara, E. Carrera, M. Filippi, P. A, Vibration analysis of thermally loaded
isotropic and composite beam and plate structures, J. Therm. Stress. (2023) 1–18.
[30] Madenci Emrah, Özkıl.ı.ç Yasin Onuralp, Aksoylu Ceyhun, Asyraf Muhammad
Rizal Muhammad, Syamsir Agusril, Supian Abu Bakar Mohd, M. Nicolay, Buckling
analysis of CNT-reinforced polymer composite beam using experimental and
analytical methods, Materials 16 (2) (2023) 614.
[31] M. Varma, Baghel Pushp Kumar, R. Ramesh, Additive manufacturing of
thermosetting resins in-situ carbon fibers: a review, Recent Adv. Mater. Mod.
Manuf. (2022) 97–105.
[32] R. Aruna, S. Mohamed Abbas, S. Vivek, G. Suresh, C.M. Meenakshi, T. Srinivasan,
S.G. K, Evolution of 5D printing and its vast applications: a review, Recent Adv.
Mater. Mod. Manuf. (2022) 691–714.
11
Next Materials 1 (2023) 100035
[33] H.S. Bharath, A. Sawardekar, S. Waddar, P. Jeyaraj, M. Doddamani, Mechanical
behavior of 3D printed syntactic foam composites, Compos. Struct. 254 (2020),
112832.
[34] Yang Mingshan, Li Xiangyu, Yuan Jianghong, Wen Zefeng, K. Guozheng,
A comprehensive study on the effective thermal conductivity of random hybrid
polymer composites, Int. J. Heat. Mass Transf. 182 (2022), 121936.
[35] Dong Wang, Shangyang Ren, Jiaoyang Chen, Yukun Li, Zhifeng Wang, Jianhua Xu,
Jia Xu, F. Jiajun, Healable, highly thermal conductive, flexible polymer composite
with excellent mechanical properties and multiple functionalities, Chem. Eng. J.
430 (2022), 133163.
[36] Shahriar Ghaffari-Mosanenzadeh, Aghababaei Tafreshi Omid, Erik Dammen-
Brower, Rad Elmira, Meysami Mohammad, N.H. E, A review on high thermally
conductive polymeric composites, Polym. Compos. 43 (2) (2022) 692–711.
[37] Jena Subrat Kumar, S. Chakraverty, Mahesh Vinyas, H. Dineshkumar, Application
of Haar wavelet discretization and differential quadrature methods for free
vibration of functionally graded micro-beam with porosity using modified couple
stress theory, Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem. 140 (2022) 167–185.
[38] Saurabh., K., Vibration analysis of Non-uniform axially functionally graded beam
resting on Pasternak foundation. Mater.Today: Proc., 2022.
[39] Nohut Serkan, S. Martin, Vat photopolymerization additive manufacturing of
functionally graded materials: a review, J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 6 (1) (2022) 17.
[40] Hamza Madjid Berrabah, B. Bachir, Buckling analysis of FGM plate exposed to
different loads conditions, Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach. (2022) 1–16.
[41] Afzali Majid, Farrokh Mojtaba, C. Erasmo, Thermal buckling loads of rectangular
FG plates with temperature-dependent properties using Carrera Unified
Formulation, Compos. Struct. (2022), 115787.
[42] A. Hajlaoui, D. F, A modified first shear deformation theory for three-dimensional
thermal post-buckling analysis of FGM plates, Meccanica 57 (2) (2022) 337–353.
[43] Dileep Bonthu, Prakash Rohith, H.S. Bharath, P. Jeyaraj, D. Mrityunjay, Dynamic
behavior of concurrently printed functionally graded closed cell foams, Compos.
Struct. 275 (2021), 114449.
[44] M.W. Zaitoun, A. Chikh, A. Tounsi, M.A. Al-Osta, A. Sharif, S.U. Al-Dulaijan, M.
M. Al-Zahrani, Influence of the visco-Pasternak foundation parameters on the
buckling behavior of a sandwich functional graded ceramic–metal plate in a
hygrothermal environment, Thin-Walled Struct. 170 (2022), 108549.
[45] M.A. Bennedjadi, Salem, Abdelbaki Chikh, Abdelhakim Kaci,
Abdelmoumen Bousahla, Bourada Fouad, Tounsi Abdeldjebbar, Benrahou Kouider,
Tounsi Abdelouahed, Visco-elastic foundation effect on buckling response of
exponentially graded sandwich plates under various boundary conditions.
Geomech. Eng. 32 (2) (2023) 159–177.
[46] M.W. Zaitoun, A. Chikh, A. Tounsi, A. Sharif, M.A. Al-Osta, S.U. Al-Dulaijan, M.
M. Al-Zahrani, An efficient computational model for vibration behavior of a
functionally graded sandwich plate in a hygrothermal environment with
viscoelastic foundation effects, Eng. Comput. 39 (2) (2023) 1127–1141.
[47] P. Van Vinh, A. Tounsi, The role of spatial variation of the nonlocal parameter on
the free vibration of functionally graded sandwich nanoplates, Eng. Comput. 38 (5)
(2022) 4301–4319.
[48] F. Bounouara, Salem Mohammed Aldosari, Abdelbaki Chikh, Abdelhakim Kaci,
Abdelmoumen Anis Bousahla, Fouad Bourada, Abdelouahed Tounsi, Kouider
Halim Benrahou, Hind Albalawi, Tounsi Abdeldjebbar, The Effect of visco-
pasternak foundation on the free vibration behavior of exponentially graded
sandwich plates with various boundary conditions, Steel Compos. Struct. 46 (3)
(2023) 367–383.
[49] M. Hadji, Abdelhakim Bouhadra, Belgacem Mamen, Menasria Abderahmane,
Bousahla Abdelmoumen Anis, Fouad Bourada, Mohamed Bourada, Kouider Halim
Benrahou, Abdelouahed Tounsi, Combined influence of porosity and elastic
foundation parameters on the bending behavior of advanced sandwich structures,
Steel Compos. Struct. 46 (1) (2023) 1–13.
[50] I. Saeed, A.T. Tahir, Abdelbaki Chikh, Al-Osta Mohammed A, Salah U. Al-Dulaijan,
Mesfer M. Al-Zahrani, The effect of three-variable viscoelastic foundation on the
wave propagation in functionally graded sandwich plates via a simple quasi-3D
HSDT, Steel Compos. Struct. 42 (4) (2022) 501–511.
[51] D. Kouider, Abdelhakim Kaci, Mahmoud M. Selim, Abdelmoumen Anis Bousahla,
Fouad Bourada, Abdeldjebbar Tounsi, Abdelouahed Tounsi, Muzamal Hussain, An
original four-variable Quasi-3D shear deformation theory for the static and free
vibration analysis of new type of sandwich plates with both FG face sheets and
FGM hard core, Steel Compos. Struct. 41 (2) (2021) 167–191.
[52] H.S. Bharath, Dileep Bonthu, Prabhakar Pavana, D. Mrityunjay, Three-dimensional
printed lightweight composite foams, ACS Omega 5 (35) (2020) 22536.
[53] L. Liu, A. Kardomateas George, Birman Victor, J.W. Holmes, S.G. J, Thermal
buckling of a heat-exposed, axially restrained composite column, Compos. Part A:
Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37 (7) (2006) 972–980.
[54] D. Mrityunjay, Dynamic mechanical analysis of 3D printed eco-friendly lightweight
composite, Compos. Commun. 19 (2020) 177–181.
[55] Waddar Sunil, Pitchaimani Jeyaraj, D. Mrityunjay, Snap-through buckling of fly
ash cenosphere/epoxy syntactic foams under thermal environment, Thin-Walled
Struct. 131 (2018) 417–427.
[56] Kanakannavar Sateeshkumar, P. Jeyaraj, Thermal buckling of braided flax woven
polylactic acid composites, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 40 (7–8) (2020) 261–272.
[57] Gilorkar Amol, Murugan Rajesh, P. Jeyaraj, Thermal buckling of sisal and glass
hybrid woven composites: experimental investigation, Compos. Part C: Open
Access 2 (2020), 100012.