Parametric optimization and modeling of the fused filament fabrication (FFF) manufacturing using recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from water bottles
Source abstract
Abstract
Most earlier studies on distributed recycling additive manufacturing (DRAM) have focused on using recycle-bots—waste plastic extruders—to produce raw materials for fused fluid fabrication (FFF). In the present study, an innovative recycling method designed explicitly for post-consumer water bottles was introduced and evaluated for its effectiveness in producing high-quality PET filament. The PET material was thoroughly characterized before and after filament production and following the 3D printing process. This approach successfully preserved the crystallinity of PET and prevented its thermal degradation. Key parameters, including infill density, printing speed, and layer thickness, were investigated using Taguchi’s method in conjunction with Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to optimize the printing of recycled PET. This methodology aimed to maximize Young’s modulus and tensile strength while minimizing printing time and material usage. The results highlighted a trade-off between mechanical performance and printing efficiency. The best mechanical properties were achieved with a layer thickness of 0.1 mm and 100% infill density, yielding a tensile strength of 30 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 2311 MPa—values comparable to commercially available recycled PET and PLA filaments.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials · Manufacturing Process and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Electromechanical Systems Laboratory, LASEM, National Engineering School of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/17452759.2016.127449010.1080/17452759.2016.1274490 ↗
2. 10.1002/pen.2614410.1002/pen.26144 ↗
3. 10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c0047510.1021/acssuschemeng.2c00475 ↗
4. Zander NE, Park JH, Boelter ZR, et al. Recycled cellulose polypropylene composite feedstocks for material extrusion additive manufacturing. Polym Eng Sci 2020; 60(3): 520–529.
5. 10.1002/pc.2597810.1002/pc.25978 ↗
6. 10.3390/recycling601000410.3390/recycling6010004 ↗
7. 10.1007/s10163-023-01607-w10.1007/s10163-023-01607-w ↗
8. 10.1007/s40089-019-0273-710.1007/s40089-019-0273-7 ↗
9. 10.3390/polym1208173810.3390/polym12081738 ↗
10. 10.3390/recycling705006910.3390/recycling7050069 ↗
11. 10.3390/ma1319427310.3390/ma13194273 ↗
12. 10.3390/inventions703007010.3390/inventions7030070 ↗
13. Lee JY, Tan WS, An J, et al. The potential to enhance membrane module design with 3D printing technology. J Membr Sci 2016; 514: 596–602.
14. 10.3390/polym1411227610.3390/polym14112276 ↗
15. 10.1002/app.4970910.1002/app.49709 ↗
16. 10.1002/pen.2617410.1002/pen.26174 ↗
17. Arifin F, Zamheri A, Martomi ES, et al. Optimization of process parameters in 3D printing FDM by using the Taguchi and grey relational analysis methods. J Manuf Technol Manag 2021; 32(2): 392–407.
18. 10.1088/1757-899X/1168/1/01202210.1088/1757-899X/1168/1/012022 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.03010.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.030 ↗
20. 10.1007/s10973-019-09188-310.1007/s10973-019-09188-3 ↗
21. 10.1002/mame.20140037610.1002/mame.201400376 ↗
22. 10.1108/1355254071082481410.1108/13552540710824814 ↗
23. 10.3390/polym1319321910.3390/polym13193219 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.physa.2019.12263710.1016/j.physa.2019.122637 ↗
25. 10.1177/0095244324125493910.1177/00952443241254939 ↗
26. Lee KPM, Brandt M, Shanks R, et al. Rheology and 3D printability of percolated graphene-polyamide-6 composites. Polym Eng Sci 2020; 60(4): 844–852.
27. Amazonas M Fisher G Zhang W. Research shows which PET water bottle design attributes impact recycling. Retrieved from: https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/research-shows-which-pet-water-bottle-design-attributes-impact-recycling/180893055679448
28. Liu Y, Bai W, Cheng X, et al. Effects of printing layer thickness on mechanical properties of 3D-printed custom trays. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124(6): 751–757.
29. 10.3390/polym1206133410.3390/polym12061334 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.13710.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.137 ↗
31. Sajjad MA, Ashraf M, Rashid A, et al. Effect of extruder temperature and printing speed on the tensile strength of fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printed samples: a meta-analysis study. Polym Eng Sci 2022; 62(4): 883–893.
32. 10.3390/polym1302023710.3390/polym13020237 ↗
33. Bakır AA, Atik R, &Özerinç S. Effect of fused deposition modeling process parameters on the mechanical properties of recycled polyethylene terephthalate parts. Applied Polymer Science 2020; 137(45): 49709.
34. Nguyen VH, Huynh TN, Nguyen TP, et al. Single and multi-objective optimization of processing parameters for fused deposition modeling in 3D printing technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2020; 17(1): 7542–7551.
35. Souissi S, Bennour W, Khammassi R, et al. Mechanical properties of 3D printed parts: effect of ultraviolet PLA filaments ageing and water absorption. J Elastomers Plast 2022; 55: 009524432211447.