© V. Diak and A. Diak, Published by EDP Sciences 2025

1 Introduction

1.1 Fiber

Conventional fabric manufacturing employs weaving, knitting, or nonwoven methods. Each technique based on raw fibers characterized primarily by high flexibility and fineness—typically expressed as a high length-to-diameter ratio. Generally, raw fiber diameters¹ range from 10 to 50 μm [1], excluding nonwoven fabrics and monofilaments² [3]. These fibers serve as foundational components for yarn formation—where yarn diameters typically span from 50 to 500 μm and fibers are often twisted together—to achieve elevated tensile strength values (tenacity³); these yarns subsequently form textiles.

Advancements in synthetic materials and innovative manufacturing technologies have enhanced traditional fiber structures by improving elasticity, strength, and uniformity [1]. Moreover, raw fiber production has advanced toward nanoscale diameters [1,3], while developments in synthetic materials have facilitated composite fibers with complex internal architectures [5], including smart fibers [5,6].

1.2 Quasi-fabrics

Traditional definitions characterize fabrics as assemblies of individual yarns interlaced through various techniques [1]. However, recent advancements have prompted a reevaluation of the term “fabric”, which now encompasses a broader range of quasi-fabrics, including modern nonwovens, composites, membranes, and medical textiles [2,3,7]. While these quasi-fabrics may differ significantly from conventional textiles in terms of properties, structural configurations, and manufacturing methods, they retain fundamental characteristics such as fineness, density, flexibility, and strength [2,6]. This expanded perspective acknowledges that innovative production techniques need not replicate classical weaving or knitting processes, thereby offering opportunities to enhance the functional performance of (quasi-)textiles [5,6]. Within this context, additive manufacturing technologies have emerged as promising methods [8,9], though further research is required to address current technological limitations despite their notable advantages [10].

1.3 3D printing

3D printing is currently regarded as one of the fastest-growing technologies within the manufacturing sector [11], largely due to its capability to enable rapid prototyping of complex structures, including those utilized in biomedical applications. A wide variety of 3D printing techniques and materials have been developed [11], each differing significantly in processes and applications. However, significant challenges are encountered when traditional woven textiles are attempted to be replicated through 3D printing [8,10], particularly in the precise duplication of textile structures [12,13]. Alternative approaches have been proposed [8,14,15], which allow for the creation of quasi-textile structures. It should be noted, however, that these 3D-printed samples do not fully exhibit the fundamental characteristics of traditional textiles and thus cannot be considered substitutes for them (refer to Sect. 2 and Tab. A1). Furthermore, a general lack of consensus exists regarding the definitions and criteria used to evaluate the “textile-likeness” of 3D-printed structures (hereafter referred to as simply “printed”).

A brief review and analysis of existing methods for producing printed quasi-textiles⁴ have been conducted, focusing on their compliance with the basic characteristics of traditional textiles. An absence of core principles (or classification criteria) has been identified through this investigation. Consequently, minimal criteria have been established to assess the conformity of printed structures to the “textile-like” concept. Additionally, an approach for the fabrication of textile-like structures using fused deposition modeling (FDM) is presented, and the challenges encountered during the production process are examined through the analysis of various specimen model design examples.

2 Existing methods for 3D printing quasi-textiles

2.1 Structures, materials, printing methods and classification

Printed quasi-textiles, irrespective of the type of structure or manufacturing method employed, are composed of fundamental elements that are interconnected in various ways. The simplest of these elements is considered to be a minimal-sized plastic line (f-fiber), analogous to a textile fiber/ thread. In case of FDM, this corresponds to a melt extruded as a thin filament (f-fiber); in selective laser sintering (SLS), it is represented by sintered powder formed into a f-fiber; and in stereolithography (SLA) or material jetting (MJ), it consists of fusible resin particles shaped as a f-fiber. The creation of curved and/or volumetric f-fibers through 3D printing enables the formation of the basic structural components of quasi-textiles. The primary physical properties of f-fibers include their diameter or width (Df)⁵ and material composition, both of which influence the tensile strength (σ_f) and bending stiffness (or flexural rigidity) (k_f) of the f-fiber.

The categorization of printed quasi-textiles is based on the following criteria:

• The characteristics of the f-fiber.

• The methods by which f-fibers (or basic elements, where the minimal unit is an f-fiber) are connected, which depend on the structural design and materials utilized.

• The type of structure, which is determined by parameters such as thickness, number of layers, flexibility, stretchability, strength, and the types of materials applied.

2.2 Characteristics of the structures

In the review of existing printed textile-like samples (Tab. A1), an attempt was made to identify the following key characteristics: the structural type (Tab. 1), the materials used in fabrication, the overall dimensions of both the complete structure and its smallest unit (i.e., f-fiber), as well as mechanical strength and bending stiffness of the presented structures.

2.2.1 Dimensions, weight, and strength

It is important to highlight that the completeness of data reported by various researchers differs substantially. As indicated in the Table A1, the majority of printed elements or structures exhibit thicknesses significantly greater than those found in their traditional textile counterparts. In general, it has been observed that 3D-printed structures possess minimum feature sizes Df ∼0.5–2 mm (depending on the manufacturing method). In contrast, a fabric thickness of 0.5 mm is already considered highly dense within conventional textile standards. Consequently, tensile strength testing is considered more informative for such printed samples.

Additionally, limited data have been reported regarding the weight of the samples and the ratio of cross-sectional area to tensile strength. This absence is critical, as the comparison of traditional fabrics with different surface densities—such as 100 g/m² versus 500 g/m²—can produce variations in mechanical performance by an order of magnitude. These differences become even more pronounced when applied to printed structures, which often exhibit significantly higher variability in weight-to-area ratios.

2.2.2 Materials

The choice of materials used in the fabrication of quasi-textile structures plays a crucial role in mechanical testing outcomes. This includes considerations related to structural design, print thickness, and the specific 3D printing method employed. These factors collectively influence not only tensile strength but also the overall flexibility and stiffness of the printed structures.

It has been observed that certain materials maintain a degree of flexibility even as f-fiber diameter increases Df = 0.2 >> 2 mm—for example, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) printed using FDM or SLS methods. In contrast, polymers such as polyamide (PA), polypropylene (PP), and polycarbonate (PC) remain relatively flexible only with more moderate increases in Df = 0.2 >> 1 mm. On the other hand, materials like polylactic acid (PLA) in FDM, or standard resins in SLA, tend to exhibit significant stiffness and brittleness within the same Df = 0.4 >>1 mm, making them prone to fracture under bending stress.

In many studies involving FDM, materials such as PLA or ABS are commonly selected due to their ease of printing. However, these polymers are among the stiffest and are rarely employed in practical textile applications, despite certain biodegradable properties (under controlled conditions) [16]. The use of such rigid materials—particularly at Df > 0.5 mm—complicates the evaluation of quasi-textile behavior. Therefore, it is recommended that testing include materials whose properties more closely align with those commonly used in the textile industry, such as PET, PA, or TPU, while PLA should be retained solely for comparative purposes. However, there are exceptions here as well. For instance, PA/TPU used in SLS printing results in a powder-based structure that introduces porosity within the f-fibers [17]. As a result, f-fibers produced via SLS at Df ∼0.4–0.6 mm demonstrate significantly lower tensile performance when compared to their monofilament counterparts fabricated using FDM or to resin-based f-fibers produced through SLA.

2.3 Criteria for defining “textile-like”

The classification of a product as “textile” or “fabric” conventionally requires that it be composed of fine, soft, and infinitely flexible fibers or threads, manufactured through various interlacing or bonding techniques [2]. However, the question arises whether a metal or fiberglass mesh utilizing woven interlacing qualifies under this definition. Similarly, can a “chainmail-like” structure—comprising numerous small interconnected elements conferring textile-like flexibility—be considered textile? At what point do such structures transition from being classified as fabrics to merely meshes? These considerations extend to printed products which, despite their diverse structural forms, may or may not fulfill the criteria for being considered “textile-like”. For example, can a thin TPU film with a thickness between 0.2 and 0.4 mm be regarded as textile-like? It is evident that any terminology applied to printed structures must be supported by explicit criteria—or clearly defined limitations—that enable objective assessment of conformity.

A foundational set of criteria is proposed, grounded in analogous properties characteristic of traditional textiles [3]. These criteria may be subject to refinement based on emerging research and conceptual advances until definitive standards are established. The following principal criteria:

1. The structure comprises independent functional threads or elements linked by specific connection methods. Independence of functional f-fibers/elements is determined by their physical separateness; connections may occur via weaving or bonding (but only at discrete points).

2. The ratios of weight, thickness, and length fall within prescribed threshold limits. Weight-to-size ratio is characterized by fabric density (mass per unit area expressed in g/m²). Traditional textiles typically exhibit densities ranging from 20 to 700 g/m² [2,3]. But for 3D-printed structures, comparable ranges are expected though values may extend up to approximately 1500 g/m² without exceeding acceptable limits.

3. The structure demonstrates the capacity for repeated and facile flexibility—including various twisting motions—without incurring significant internal damage that would preclude restoration to its original configuration. Flexibility/stiffness (as flexural rigidity) for samples of length ∼10+ cm and width ∼1 cm should sustain easy bending (deflection under self-weight > 2 cm). Flexibility assessments may adhere to ASTM D1388 “Standard Test Method for Stiffness of Fabrics”. For samples exhibiting high stiffness (deflection under self-weight < 2 cm) or elevated crease resistance, alternative tests such as ASTM D4032 or ASTM D790 can be applied. Such materials must endure at least 100 cycles of full bend-unbend motions up to 180 degrees at their ends without severe creasing or element failure; bending stiffness results are reported in N · m.

4. The structure possesses sufficient tensile strength to permit practical application in everyday contexts. Given that printed textiles do not rely on conventional yarns, tenacity is an unsuitable metric. Common standards relate breaking force to specimen width alone (N/tex), neglecting thickness—which can significantly exceed typical textile dimensions in additive manufacturing. Consequently, maximum breaking force should preferably be normalized by cross-sectional area (expressed in N/mm² or MPa). Specific breaking force Fr can be calculated as Fr = F / (ρ × w), where F is measured force, w is sample width, and ρ is aerial density per unit area (g/mm²), yielding units N · mm/g. Strength testing protocols may follow ASTM D5034/5 “Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics”.

By “sufficient”, tensile strength is referred to as not being less than the lowest industrially utilized traditional textile standard—specifically, exceeding 1 MPa for cross-sectional areas below 1 mm². For example: with a thickness of 0.5 mm and a specimen width of 10 mm, a cross-sectional area of 5 mm² is obtained. If a break force of 4 N is measured, then a tensile strength of 0.8 MPa (calculated as 4 ÷ 5) is derived, which falls short of the threshold. This indicates that inadequate tensile durability is exhibited by such a structure.

Additional factors—including material composition, element connection methods, stretchability, breathability, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity balance, tactile properties, and sustainability—are important but considered secondary when defining “textile-like” property for printed structures. Nevertheless, materials exhibiting excessively high stiffness are generally undesirable except when incorporated within chainmail configurations.

3 3D-printed quasi-textiles

3.1 3D-printed filament (f-fiber)

As was told before, the fundamental unit of printed textiles is the extruded filament element known as f-fiber, analogous to fiber/yarn in traditional textiles. While various 3D printing techniques can produce some sort of equivalents to this f-fiber (in the form of extruded line), only FDM technology uniquely generates f-fibers that closely resemble traditional fibers in their properties⁶. In applications involving chain-mail structures (or linked pattern elements), the minimal pattern unit can be as a complex 3D component, precluding direct comparison with conventional yarn. In this case, the average diameter of the very basic component within these 3D elements—referred to herein as f-fiber—may be focused on in the assessment, despite its characteristically short length. It is apparent that achieving smaller f-fiber dimensions via any 3D printing method enhances the potential for fabricating structures that meet “textile-like” criteria. However, at very reduced scales, these elements risk becoming excessively fragile and brittle, thereby complicating practical use.

Through the analysis of SLS practices and experimental evaluations (Fig. 1a), it was indicated that although f-fibers with diameters Df ∼400µm can be fabricated using SLS, significant structural fragility is exhibited by these f-fibers due to their inherent porosity. When attempts were made to reduce Df to ≤300µm, unstable outcomes were observed, characterized by frequent breakage and brittleness. Additionally, undesired adhesion between f-fibers was frequently encountered during the printing process. A minimum diameter of Df = 500µm was determined as necessary to ensure intact and functional structures capable of bending, unbending, and gentle stretching.

In the examination of SLA technology, highly detailed prints were achieved, featuring distinct f-fibers with minimum diameters near Df = 300µm and inter-fiber spacing exceeding 200µm (Fig. 1b). However, f-fibers produced by SLA resins were found not to exhibit properties comparable to those generated via FDM—particularly at reduced scales—primarily due to material limitations. Either rigid and brittle resins were used, or flexible materials resembling TPU 95A (used in FDM) were employed, though these proved inferior in tensile strength when Df ≤ 400 µm.

Current FDM practices typically employ f-fiber diameters around Df ∼400 µm [18], which remains over 10 times larger than elementary fibers found in traditional textiles (D ∼10–40 µm) [1,3]. However, comparing these values with textile yarns suggests that f-fiber sized between Df ∼100–200 µm may offer a degree of correspondence potentially delivering desired flexibility and strength⁷. Ensuring uniformity in both structure and diameter throughout the extrusion length is critical when producing such f-fibers—similar to monofilaments [2]. Although FDM can generate variable “hair-like” f-fibers reaching local diameters as low as ∼10 µm [19], these occur only over very short segments (<1–2 mm), with overall diameter variation along a 1 cm length ranging from approximately 5µm up to 500 µm. Such f-fibers are suitable primarily for niche manufacturing technologies (e.g., defeXtiles [20]) or nonwoven prototypes but are inadequate where consistent cross-sectional uniformity is essential.

Employing f-fibers within the range of Df = 100–200 µm (excluding elastomeric materials) could produce structures substantially more flexible than those fabricated using currently prevalent f-fibers sized between Df = 500–2000 µm [8]. This reduction would also increase f-fiber density per unit area, thereby enhancing mechanical strength while improving flexibility akin to traditional textiles. Conversely, reducing Df < 50 µm⁸ introduces challenges including disproportionately long print durations—even extending several hours for small samples (∼10×10 cm)—and elevated error rates.

In conclusion, developing textile-like structures via 3D printing constitutes a multifaceted challenge necessitating a balanced approach addressing multiple objectives simultaneously. From a practical standpoint, f-fibers diameters ranging from Df = 50–200 µm appear optimal when considering realistic manufacturability constraints, trade-offs between print speed and resolution, final structural quality, and adherence to “textile-like” standards.

Fig. 1 Macrographs of printed structures via: a. SLS (left − 400 µm, right − 300 µm), b. SLA 200 µm.

3.2 Structures

The principal advantage of FDM is regarded as its ability to fabricate f-fibers whose structure and properties are closely replicated to those of conventional synthetic textile fibers produced via dry, wet, or melt spinning techniques [2]. Through practical experience, the production of homogeneous f-fibers with Df < 200μm for the initial layer has been achieved. Nevertheless, multiple challenges have been encountered, related to both the technical configurations and the software parameters of the printing process⁹. Moreover, beyond the fabrication of f-fibers, the selection of material is recognized as playing a pivotal role; for example, while successful results have been obtained with PLA, less satisfactory outcomes have been yielded when printing with PA and TPU—an aspect that warrants careful consideration.

While the approximate replication of nearly all textile structures can be enabled by additive manufacturing technologies, it is imperative that the objectives underlying such simulations be clearly defined at the outset. For instance, although nanometer-scale fibers can be generated through electrospinning, the use of these fibers for weaving or knitting textiles would be considered impractical and illogical. Following an analysis of current developments in quasi-textile production (refer to Section 2), along with their potential applications and intended functions, the focus has been placed on working with nonwoven fabric analogues—represented as mesh, single-layer, and geometrically complex printed structures. This focus is justified by the following factors:

• The capability to produce filaments analogous in structure and properties to synthetic fibers manufactured through spinneret processes [2];

• The theoretical possibility, with appropriate FDM calibration, to reduce f-fiber diameters to very fine scales <80 μm;

• The exploitation of thermal bonding effects between f-fibers in printed nonwoven structures; while these mimic the appearance of traditional woven textiles without actual interlacing;

• The opportunity to develop structures exhibiting novel characteristics and textures—specifically composite filaments, multilayered three-dimensional architectures, or variable stiffness configurations that are challenging to achieve using conventional textile methods;

• Prospects for producing composite and smart structures.

Although the process of creating such printed quasi-textile structures is relatively straightforward, several technical challenges arise during implementation (Tab. 2).

4 Results and manufacturing features

This section is used to present empirical findings related to printed nonwoven structures that are consistent with the previously defined quasi-textile concept. Additionally, an analysis of printed samples is provided, accompanied by a comprehensive discussion of the production challenges that were encountered.

4.1 Classification and assessment of specimen models

The models were fabricated, and their structural configurations are illustrated in Figure 2. Each model features an outline dimension of 67 × 10 mm and is presented at full scale in Figure 6. The structural designs were developed not only to demonstrate the conceptual feasibility of printing quasi-textile forms but also to concurrently evaluate the limits of FDM technology and the quality of the resulting output. The models included in the structural design are detailed in Table 3.

Preliminary assessments of our mesh-type structures, based on the criteria proposed in Section 2.3, were carried out (refer to Tab. 4, Figs. 3 and 4) to evaluate the samples (a similar classification of reviewed printed structures is presented in Tab. A1). In addition, printing details were analyzed, and critical issues were highlighted through empirical testing and microscopic visual inspection. The findings have been categorized and are presented in Section 4.2 to support a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations inherent in the employed printing methodology. A detailed examination of the initial challenges associated with textile-like structures is further elaborated in the referenced publication [18].

Fig. 2 Model type: a. Mesh|Net, b. Wave, c. Line/Hexagon, d. Line/Step, e. Line/Meander.

Fig. 3 Printed samples and their corresponding macrographs. a. PA6 material (mark .1), b. PA6 (mark .2 1), c. PLA (mark .1), d. PLA (mark .2 1).

Fig. 4 Tests. a. ASTM D790 (for PLA, mark .1), b. ASTM D1388 (For PA6 mark .2 1, PLA mark .2 1), c. ASTM D5034 (for PLA mark .1, PA6 mark .2 1).

4.2 Manufacturing issues and analysis

4.2.1 Nozzle diameter and its influence on f-fiber

F-fiber width is predominantly governed by the nozzle diameter (Dn). When a standard Dn = 0.4 mm is utilized, an effective extrusion width (EW) is typically higher, and this is observed under practical conditions. EW corresponds to a physical parameter linked with the software-configured (via slicer, like Cura) Line Width (LW) in 3D slicer applications [18]. For example, for Dn = LW = 0.40 mm → EW ≥ 0.48 mm; this increase relative to Dn arises from physical phenomena involving pressure dynamics and melt heating within the nozzle followed by energy release at its exit [21].

Although a theoretical reduction in Dn is expected to decrease EW, its practical implementation is significantly complicated by various factors, including the precision of the printer kinematics, the condition of the nozzle, print speed settings, material characteristics, the nozzle-to-bed distance, bed surface properties, and thermal conditions. Extensive testing has demonstrated that when Dn <0.3 mm, the production of high-quality initial-layer prints becomes markedly challenging. With nozzles below Dn = 0.15 mm, the achievement of uniform first-layer deposition without discontinuities is rendered nearly impossible unless extremely precise machinery and meticulous calibration protocols are employed. As a result, a practical lower limit of approximately EW = 0.25 mm for f-fiber width reduction has been identified for mid-range budget printers. Nevertheless, significant quality variations across different Dn values have been effectively minimized through the application of optimized settings, as illustrated in Figure 5a (up to EW ∼0.15 mm).

Fig. 5 PLA material, a. EW size variations from top (EW ∼0.15 mm) to bottom (EW ∼0.4 mm), b. Flow variations: f100 means flow rate = 100%; f50 means flow rate = 50% or half the plastic extrusion rate.

Fig. 6 Textile-like structures. a,b. test speed vs curvature (PLA), speed range 10–50 mm/s, c. two-material detaching (layer 1–PA12 transparent, layer 2–PLA black), d. one-layer wave-structure (PLA).

4.2.2 Impact of software line width setting (LW) and flow (f) on f-fiber

The influence of flow rate (expressed as extrusion multiplier percentage) has been investigated in prior studies [18,20]. Figure 5b illustrates the impact of adjusting flow rate to reduce the effective extrusion width (EW) on f-fiber morphology. Such reduction of flow rate results in irregular f-fiber formations, often exhibiting “wave-like” or “droplet” characteristics, which significantly compromise the mechanical integrity of the printed structure.

4.2.3 Effect of printing speed and structural dynamics (curvilinearity line degree) on f-fiber

To evaluate printing speed's effect on accuracy, a dynamic model incorporating “step-line” shape within the structure was developed. Increasing printing speed progressively resulted in discernible deformation of these “steps”, as depicted in the Figures 6a,6b—indicating that curvature fidelity of f-fibers overlapping select points on underlying layers varies significantly with print velocity.

4.2.4 Hygroscopicity of raw filament material and its consequences on f-fiber

Surface defects (Figs. 7a,7b) exemplified by “craters” observed on f-fibers stem from moisture content in raw filament materials causing evaporation during melting inside the nozzle; this leads to micro-explosions within extrusions manifesting as imperfections.

Fig. 7 a,b. Hygroscopicity of raw filament, Rubber-like materials used with various Shore number: c. TPU 95A, d. TPU 82A, e. TPU 70A, f. TPU 60A.

4.2.5 Printing with rubber-like materials: influence of shore hardness on f-fiber

An investigation into TPU Shore hardness variations revealed substantial effects on final f-fiber quality; modifying TPU stiffness not only alters printability but may entirely preclude successful printing—particularly when targeting smaller f-fiber diameters where constraints intensify further. The challenge arises because lower Shore hardness renders molten polymer inside the hotend excessively adhesive, impeding proper extrusion or retraction operations. Additionally, the issues escalate when printing discontinuous f-fiber since TPU properties hinder clean separations during rapid hotend movements resulting in stringing artifacts as illustrated in Figure 7c-7f.

4.2.6 Minimum structural feature size and resultant print quality

A range of structures featuring diverse elemental sizes was fabricated achieving minimal feature dimensions conducive to successful printing alongside consistent reproducibility without errors. Macro-photos (Figs. 8a,8b) document these structures together with their defects. Notably, the minimal feature diameters attained—approximately 0.8 mm for small polygons and 1.6 mm for larger geometries—represent relatively fine resolution capabilities within FDM technology parameters.

Fig. 8 Internal structure hexagon diameters (PLA): a. hexagon 1.6 mm, b. hexagon 0.8 mm.

4.2.7 F-fiber damage or breakage during printing

F-fiber breakages observed during printing can be attributed to several factors, primarily including:

• Irregular filament feed during extrusion;

• Significant deviations in the flatness of the print bed or 3D printer guides, resulting in variable distances between the nozzle and print bed;

• Variability in filament cross-sectional quality entering the nozzle, causing fluctuations in the volume of molten material extruded;

• Elevated printing speeds that adversely affect melt adhesion to the bed or preceding layers, which, when combined with other factors, contribute to breakages;

• Physical and chemical properties of certain materials that predispose fine f-fibers to fracture during extrusion.

4.2.8 Bonding between different materials

Challenges arise when bonding materials with differing melting points. Specifically, plastics with lower melting temperatures often fail to adhere adequately to substrates composed of higher-melting-point materials, resulting in insufficient interlayer bonding between distinct f-fibers (Fig. 6c).

4.2.9 F-fiber homogeneity relative to material type

Macro-photo analysis (Figs. 9a,9b,9d,9e) demonstrates that f-fiber structure is significantly influenced by material composition. For instance, TPU exhibits pronounced irregularity compared to PLA/PET filaments. Variations are also evident within polyamide types (e.g., PA6 versus PA12) and are further affected by moisture content. Moreover, polyamides tend toward elongation while displaying structural inconsistencies in their structure.

Fig. 9 Homogeneity (material effect). a. PA6, b. PLA/PA6, d. PA12/TPU, e. PET. Sagging: c. PLA. Stringing: f. PA12/PA6.

4.2.10 Sagging of second-layer f-fibers

In multilayer constructs where f-fibers are spaced widely apart, sagging of second-layer f-fiber naturally occurs (Fig. 9c). The degree of sagging depends on factors such as material type, spacing between attachment points, and f-fiber thickness.

4.2.11 Stringing phenomenon during printing based on material

When fabricating very small features (lengths up to 1.5 mm), employing retraction typically induces printing defects and is thus generally avoided; consequently, macro-photos in Figure 9f reveal stringing artifacts under these conditions. This phenomenon is also prevalent when printing thin, elastomeric materials as elaborated further in Section 4.2.5.

4.2.12 Thermobonding of intersecting f-fibers across two layers

Thermobonding is utilized to fabricate printed nonwoven structures by joining intersecting filaments without relying on traditional weaving patterns, thereby enabling the formation of ordered architectures. Distinct behaviors across different materials under thermobonding conditions are demonstrated by all samples. Although multiple variables affect bond quality, temperature dependence is identified as a critical factor. Further investigation is required to establish precise thresholds for filament melting temperatures and joint integrity.

4.2.13 Thermobonding between f-fibers within a single layer

Single-layer printed structures (Figs. 6d and 10a) often exhibit suboptimal interfacial adhesion, which is particularly critical in dynamic applications. This highlights the need for improvement through optimized thermobonding strategies, such as the reduction of print speeds to enhance layer fusion.

4.2.14 Thermobonding between two different materials

As discussed in Section 4.2.8, effective thermobonding between two dissimilar materials has been demonstrated in Figures 10a-10c, provided their melting temperatures are approximately equivalent or if the upper layer possesses a higher melting point than the underlying layer.

Fig. 10 Thermobonding between two different materials: a. PLA/PA, b. PA/TPU, c. TPU/PLA.

5 Conclusion

Although 3D printing is regarded as a promising technology for the fashion industry, its current impact has been limited [8], primarily due to the complexities associated with producing quasi-textile products. In this study, a brief overview of existing methodologies for creating printed structures that emulate traditional textiles—or analogous forms such as chainmail fabrics—is provided. A lack of standardized evaluation criteria for defining “textile-likeness” was identified, and the analysis of available data did not reveal clear correlations between the characteristics of these structures and those of conventional fabrics.

To address this gap, basic criteria for future analysis and assessment of such printed structures have been proposed, with the rationale for key elements defining textile-like architectures—based on traditional textiles—clearly outlined.

Furthermore, practical prototypes were developed and presented using simple “mesh” model and thermobonding method of f-fibers, analogous to nonwoven fabrics. The objective was to demonstrate the capability of FDM technology to produce extremely fine f-fiber diameters (ranging from 100 to 200 μm), thereby allowing printed structures to meet essential “textile-like” criteria. To explore the potential of this approach, multiple structural models incorporating diverse f-fiber joining techniques were introduced.

Test prints revealed specific challenges inherent in the fabrication of printed quasi-textiles. The insights gained from this work are intended to enhance understanding and support continued research progress in this domain.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT) under Grant No: S-PD-22-44.

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Author contribution statement

Conceptualization: A.D. and V.D. Data curation: A.D. Formal analysis: A.D. Funding acquisition: V.D. Investigation: A.D. Methodology: A.D. and V.D. Project administration: V.D. Software: A.D. Supervision: V.D. Validation: V.D. Visualization: V.D. Writing—original draft: A.D. and V.D. Writing—review and editing: A.D. and V.D.

References

Appendix A

All Tables

All Figures

	Fig. 1 Macrographs of printed structures via: a. SLS (left − 400 µm, right − 300 µm), b. SLA 200 µm.
In the text

	Fig. 2 Model type: a. Mesh|Net, b. Wave, c. Line/Hexagon, d. Line/Step, e. Line/Meander.
In the text

	Fig. 3 Printed samples and their corresponding macrographs. a. PA6 material (mark .1), b. PA6 (mark .2 1), c. PLA (mark .1), d. PLA (mark .2 1).
In the text

	Fig. 4 Tests. a. ASTM D790 (for PLA, mark .1), b. ASTM D1388 (For PA6 mark .2 1, PLA mark .2 1), c. ASTM D5034 (for PLA mark .1, PA6 mark .2 1).
In the text

	Fig. 5 PLA material, a. EW size variations from top (EW ∼0.15 mm) to bottom (EW ∼0.4 mm), b. Flow variations: f100 means flow rate = 100%; f50 means flow rate = 50% or half the plastic extrusion rate.
In the text

	Fig. 6 Textile-like structures. a,b. test speed vs curvature (PLA), speed range 10–50 mm/s, c. two-material detaching (layer 1–PA12 transparent, layer 2–PLA black), d. one-layer wave-structure (PLA).
In the text

	Fig. 7 a,b. Hygroscopicity of raw filament, Rubber-like materials used with various Shore number: c. TPU 95A, d. TPU 82A, e. TPU 70A, f. TPU 60A.
In the text

	Fig. 8 Internal structure hexagon diameters (PLA): a. hexagon 1.6 mm, b. hexagon 0.8 mm.
In the text

	Fig. 9 Homogeneity (material effect). a. PA6, b. PLA/PA6, d. PA12/TPU, e. PET. Sagging: c. PLA. Stringing: f. PA12/PA6.
In the text

	Fig. 10 Thermobonding between two different materials: a. PLA/PA, b. PA/TPU, c. TPU/PLA.
In the text