journal article·2017-06-01Open access

Mechanical Properties of Specimens 3D Printed with Virgin and Recycled Polylactic Acid

Isabelle Anderson

Abstract

Abstract With the 26% annual growth rate of additive manufacturing, especially in the area of 3D polymer printing, the amount of waste is increasing at a rapid rate. Limited research in the area of recycling has been produced, yet there are several recycling machines being developed for home use. Despite this work there is no published mechanical data on components produced with filament recycled from 3D printed parts. There is very limited data on mechanical properties of any 3D printed materials. This article compares the properties of parts 3D printed with virgin polylactic acid (PLA) to those printed with recycled PLA. Using commercially available PLA and an entry level 3D printer, tensile and shear specimens were produced and then tested for tensile yield strength, modulus of elasticity, shear yield strength, and hardness. The specimens were then ground up and re-extruded into filament, and a second set of specimens were produced and tested using this recycled PLA filament. Mechanical testing showed that 3D printing with recycled PLA is a viable option. With the recycled filament, tensile strength decreased 10.9%, shear strength increased 6.8%, and hardness decreased 2.4%. The tensile modulus of elasticity was statistically unchanged. Although the average mechanical properties before and after recycling were similar, there was more variability in the results of the recycled filament. Additionally, when printing with the recycled filament there was some nozzle clogging, while none occurred with the virgin filament. Overall, the mechanical properties of specimens 3D printed from recycled PLA filament were similar to virgin properties, encouraging further development in the area of recycling 3D printed filament.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Longmeadow High School

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.bushor.2014.11.00510.1016/j.bushor.2014.11.005 ↗
2. Gibson I, , Rosen B, , Stucker B. Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing, 2nd Edition. Johnson Matthey Technology Review, 2015; 59:193–197.
3. 10.1007/s00170-012-4558-510.1007/s00170-012-4558-5 ↗
4. A Third Industrial Revolution. The Economist April 21 2012: The Economist. The Economist Newspaper. April 21 2012.
5. Kira. Wohlers Report 2016 reveals $1 billion growth in 3D printing industry. 3D Printing Technology. Wohlers Associates Inc. 2016. www.3ders.org/articles/20160405-wohlers-report-2016-reveals-1-billion-growth-in-3d-printing-industry.html (Accessed May22 2017).
6. Columbus Louis. 2015 Roundup Of 3D Printing Market Forecasts And Estimates Online Blog Posting. www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/03/31/2015-roundup-of-3d-printing-market-forecasts-and-estimates/#482faf951dc6 (Accessed December19 2016).
7. Slijkoord Jan Willem. Is recycling PLA really better than composting? Online News post. https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/is-recycling-pla-really-better-than-composting-49679 (Accessed December18 2016).
8. 10.1016/S0141-3910(02)00372-510.1016/S0141-3910(02)00372-5 ↗
9. Shen J. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Polylactic Acid (PLA) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). Nature.berkeley.edu. Berkeley Apr.-May 2011. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2011final/ShenJ_2011.pdf.
10. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.00910.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.009 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.03810.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.038 ↗
12. Kreiger M Anzalone G Mulder M et al. Michigan Technological University. Distributed Recycling of Post-Consumer Plastic Waste in Rural Areas. MRS Online Proceedings Library 2013 1492 mrsf12-1492-g04-06. http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/materials_fp/51 (Accessed October30 2016).
13. 10.3390/ma810536010.3390/ma8105360 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.01310.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.013 ↗
15. Dulebová L, , Greškovič F. Influence of regrind on properties of plastics processing by injection moulding. Mater Eng, 2011; 18:44–48.
16. Cruz F Lanza S Boudaoud H Hoppe S Camargo M. Polymer Recycling and Additive Manufacturing in an Open Source Context: Optimization of Processes and Methods. Tech. Print.
17. ASTM D638—14 Standard Test Methods for Tensile Properties of Plastics. West Conshohocken PA: ASTM International 2010.
18. ASTM D732-10 Standard Test Method for Shear Strength by Punch Tool -Standard Test Methods for Tensile Properties of Plastics. West Conshohocken PA: ASTM International 2010.
19. Perkins L Lobo H. Cornell University and Datapoint Labs. A Novel Technique to Measure Tensile Properties of Plastics at High Strain Rates. www.datapointlabs.com/testpaks/antec2005.htm (Accessed October30 2016).
20. 10.1108/RPJ-09-2014-013510.1108/RPJ-09-2014-0135 ↗
21. Fernandez-Vicente M, , Calle W, , Ferrandiz S, et al. Effect of infill parameters on tensile mechanical behavior in desktop 3D printing. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. 3;3:2016.
22. Botfeeder Canada. ABS vs PLA Comparison Table. www.botfeeder.ca/ABS-VS-PLA (Accessed October30 2016).
23. 10.1002/fam.81010030310.1002/fam.810100303 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.05010.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.050 ↗
25. 10.1108/1355254131130297810.1108/13552541311302978 ↗