Effect of Process Parameters and Postprocessing on Mechanical Properties of Additive Manufacturing Polylactic Acid Obtained by Fused Deposition Modeling
Source abstract
Abstract
The aim of this article is to study the influence of some printing parameters and postprocessing on mechanical properties of polylactic acid samples manufactured by fused deposition modeling with a 3D printer. The effects of different building orientations, concentric infill, and postprocessing by annealing were analyzed. In this sense, uniaxial tensile and three-point bending tests were performed to determine the ultimate strength, modulus of elasticity, and elongation at break. Among all printing parameters of interest, the print orientation can be considered one of the most important, being fundamental in the mechanical behavior. Once samples were fabricated, annealing processes were also considered, close to the T g , in order to study the effects on mechanical properties. In the modified print orientation, the average values for the E and the σ TS are 3337.15–3337.92 and 36.42–37.62 MPa, compared with default printing with the E and the σ TS that are 2541.63–2692.34 and 28.81–28.89 MPa, respectively. In the annealed samples, the values for the E f and the σ f are 2337.73 and 63.96 MPa, compared with the reference samples with the E f and the σ f values of 2164.40 and 59.66 MPa, respectively. Hence, the print orientation and postprocessing must be taken into account as important factors for the final properties of the desired product.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research · Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Escuela Superior de Ingeniería y Tecnología, Universidad de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compind.2017.08.00210.1016/j.compind.2017.08.002 ↗
2. Dizon JRC, , Espera Jr. AH, Chen Q, et al. Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Addit Manuf, 2018; 20:44–67.
3. 10.1016/j.addma.2019.04.00110.1016/j.addma.2019.04.001 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.02810.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.01010.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.010 ↗
6. 10.1080/17452759.2016.120986710.1080/17452759.2016.1209867 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.03110.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.031 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.01510.1016/j.addma.2019.03.015 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.02010.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.020 ↗
10. 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.231181010.1109/ACCESS.2014.2311810 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.08610.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.086 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.mio.2016.08.00110.1016/j.mio.2016.08.001 ↗
13. Reddy KVP, , Mirzana IM, , Reddy AK. Application of Additive Manufacturing technology to an Aerospace component for better trade-off's. ICMPC 2017 Mater Today Proc, 2018; 5:3895–3902.
14. 10.1016/j.ast.2016.12.01910.1016/j.ast.2016.12.019 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.07.00710.1016/j.jmapro.2018.07.007 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.03610.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.036 ↗
17. 10.4236/ojapps.2017.7602410.4236/ojapps.2017.76024 ↗
18. Arunkumar N, , Sathishkumar N, , Sanmugapriya S.S, et al. Study on PLA and PA thermoplastic polymers reinforced with carbon additives by 3D printing process. Mater Today Proc 2021. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.041.
19. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.48410.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.484 ↗
20. ISO/ASTM 52900:2015. Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Terminology. West Conshohocken: ASTM International 2015.
21. 10.1016/j.addr.2016.06.01210.1016/j.addr.2016.06.012 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2008.01.00410.1016/j.compscitech.2008.01.004 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.addma.2015.09.00610.1016/j.addma.2015.09.006 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.08.14510.1016/j.matpr.2018.08.145 ↗
25. 10.1016/S0141-3910(02)00372-510.1016/S0141-3910(02)00372-5 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.05010.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.050 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.109910.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.1099 ↗
28. Casavola C Cazzato A Moramarco V et al. Orthotropic mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate theory Mater Des 2016;90:453–458.10.1016/j.matdes.2015.11.009 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.14610.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.146 ↗
30. 10.1088/1742-6596/1130/1/01201710.1088/1742-6596/1130/1/012017 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.10808910.1016/j.matdes.2019.108089 ↗
32. Rajpurohit SR, , Dave HK. Tensile properties of 3D printed PLA under unidirectional and bidirectional raster angle: A comparative study. Int J Mater Met Eng, 2018; 12:6–11.
33. Kiendl J, , Gao C, , Controlling toughness and strength of FDM 3D-printed PLA components through the raster layup. Compos Part B 2020;180:107562.
34. 10.3390/polym1003031310.3390/polym10030313 ↗
35. 10.1007/s11837-015-1367-y10.1007/s11837-015-1367-y ↗
36. 10.1088/1757-899X/501/1/01202810.1088/1757-899X/501/1/012028 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.07910.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.079 ↗
38. 10.1108/RPJ-07-2014-008310.1108/RPJ-07-2014-0083 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10912110.1016/j.matdes.2020.109121 ↗
40. ISO 527-1:2019. Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 1: General Principles. Geneva Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization 2012.
41. ISO 527-2:2012. Plastics—Determination of Tensile Properties—Part 2: Test Conditions for Moulding and Extrusion Plastics. Geneva Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization 2012.
42. ISO 178:2019. Plastics—Determination of Flexural Properties. Geneva Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization 2012.
43. Montero M, , Roundy S, , Odell D, et al. Material characterization of fused deposition modeling ABS by designed experiments. In: Proceedings of Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing Conference, Cincinnati, OH,. 2001.
44. ASTM D790-10 Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. West Conshohocken PA: ASTM International 2010.
45. 10.1016/j.supflu.2011.03.00610.1016/j.supflu.2011.03.006 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.05110.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.051 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.04710.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.047 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.01.14610.1016/j.matpr.2018.01.146 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.addma.2018.11.00810.1016/j.addma.2018.11.008 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.01310.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.013 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.03810.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.038 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.prostr.2020.02.02610.1016/j.prostr.2020.02.026 ↗
53. Kovan V, , Tezel T, , Camurlu HE, et al. Effect of printing parameters on mechanical properties of 3D printed PLA/carbon fibre composites. Mater Sci Nonequilib Phase Transform, 2018; 4:126–128.
54. 10.3390/ma1301001510.3390/ma13010015 ↗
55. Abeykoon C, , Sri-Amphorn P, , Fernando A, Optimization of fused deposition modeling parameters for improved PLA and ABS 3D printed structures. Int J Lightweight Mater Manuf 2020;3:284–297.
56. 10.1088/1757-899X/670/1/01206610.1088/1757-899X/670/1/012066 ↗
57. 10.1088/1757-899X/429/1/01210110.1088/1757-899X/429/1/012101 ↗
58. 10.3934/matersci.2019.6.103310.3934/matersci.2019.6.1033 ↗