0
Research Papers

Improved Mechanical Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling-Manufactured Parts Through Build Parameter Modifications

[+] Author and Article Information
Mohammad Shojib Hossain

W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at El Paso,
500 W. University Avenue,
El Paso, TX 79968
e-mail: mshossain@miners.utep.edu

David Espalin

W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at El Paso,
500 W. University Avenue,
El Paso, TX 79968
e-mail: despalin@utep.edu

Jorge Ramos

W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at El Paso,
500 W. University Avenue,
El Paso, TX 79968
e-mail: jramos16@miners.utep.edu

Mireya Perez

W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at El Paso,
500 W. University Avenue,
El Paso, TX 79968
e-mail: maperez4@utep.edu

Ryan Wicker

W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at El Paso,
500 W. University Avenue,
El Paso, TX 79968
e-mail: rwicker@utep.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 11, 2014; final manuscript received September 2, 2014; published online October 24, 2014. Assoc. Editor: David L. Bourell.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 136(6), 061002 (Oct 24, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: MANU-14-1102; doi: 10.1115/1.4028538 History: Received March 11, 2014; Revised September 02, 2014

Today, the use of material extrusion processes, like fused deposition modeling (FDM), in aerospace, biomedical science, and other industries, is gaining popularity because of the access to production-grade thermoplastic polymer materials. This paper focuses on how modifying process parameters such as build orientation, raster angle (RA), contour width (CW), raster width (RW), and raster-to-raster air gap (RRAG) can improve ultimate tensile strength (UTS), Young's modulus, and tensile strain. This was assessed using three methods: default, Insight revision, and visual feedback. On average, parameter modification through the visual feedback method improved UTS in all orientations, 16% in XYZ, 7% in XZY, and 22% in ZXY.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

ASTM, 2012, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Stucker, B., 2012, “Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Technology Introduction and Business Implications,” Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering From the 2011 Symposium, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, Sept. 19–21, pp. 5–14.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D. W., and Stucker, B., 2010, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing, Springer, New York.
Sun, Q., Rizvi, G. M., Bellehumeur, C. T., and Gu, P., 2008, “Effect of Processing Conditions on the Bonding Quality of FDM Polymer Filaments,” Rapid Prototyping J., 14(2), pp. 72–80. [CrossRef]
Swanson, W. J., Turley, P. W., Leavitt, P. J., Karwoski, P. J., LaBossiere, E., and Skubic, R. L., 2004, “High Temperature Modeling Apparatus,” U.S. Patent No. US 6,722,872 B1.
ASTM, 2011, “Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing-Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Perez, M., Block, M., Espalin, D., Winker, R., Hoppe, T., Medina, F., and Wicker, R., 2012, “Sterilization of FDM-Manufactured Parts,” Proceedings of the 2012 Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, Aug. 6–8, pp. 285–296.
Zein, I., Dietmar, W. H., Tan, K. C., and Teoh, S. H., 2002, “Fused Deposition Modeling of Novel Scaffold Architectures for Tissue Engineering Applications,” Biomaterials, 23(4), pp. 1169–1185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Espalin, D., Arcaute, K., Rodriguez, D., Medina, F., Posner, M., and Wicker, R., 2010, “Fused Deposition Modeling of Patient-Specific Polymethylmethacrylate Implants,” Rapid Prototyping J., 16(3), pp. 164–173. [CrossRef]
Mireles, J., Kim, H. C., Lee, I. H., Espalin, D., Medina, F., MacDonald, E., and Wicker, R., 2013, “Development of a Fused Deposition Modeling System for Low Melting Temperature Metal Alloys,” ASME J. Electron. Packag., 135(1), p. 011008. [CrossRef]
Kalita, S. J., Bose, S., Hosick, H. L., and Bandyopadhyay, A., 2003, “Development of Controlled Porosity Polymer-Ceramic Composite Scaffolds via Fused Deposition Modeling,” Mater. Sci. Eng., 23(5), pp. 611–620. [CrossRef]
Masood, and S. H., Song, W. Q., 2004, “Development of New Metal/Polymer Materials for Rapid Tooling Using Fused Deposition Modeling,” Mater. Des., 25(7), pp. 587–594. [CrossRef]
Raut, S. V., Jatti, V. K. S., and Singh, T. P., 2014, “Mechanical Properties of Copper Filled Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Composites,” Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., 9(16), pp. 3409–3416.
Nikzad, M., Masood, S. H., Sbarski, I., and Groth, A., 2007, “Thermo-Mechanical Properties of a Metal-Filled Polymer Composite for Fused Deposition Modelling Applications,” Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Congress Applied Mechanics, Brisbane, Australia, Dec. 10–12, pp. 319–324.
Masood, S. H., Mau, K., and Song, W. Q., 2010, “Tensile Properties of Processed FDM Polycarbonate Material,” Mater. Sci. Forum, 654–656, pp. 2556–2559. [CrossRef]
Ahn, S. H., Montero, M., Odell, D., Roundy, S., and Wright, P. K., 2002, “Anisotropic Material Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling ABS,” Rapid Prototyping J., 8(4), pp. 248–257. [CrossRef]
Sood, A. K., Ohdar, R. K., and Mahapatra, S. S., 2010, “Parametric Appraisal of Mechanical Property of Fused Deposition Modeling Processed Parts,” Mater. Des., 31(1), pp. 287–295. [CrossRef]
Bellini, A., and Güçeri, S., 2003, “Mechanical Characterization of Parts Fabricated Using Fused Deposition Modeling,” Rapid Prototyping J., 9(4), pp. 252–264. [CrossRef]
ASTM, 2010, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM, 2008, Standard Practice for Conditioning Plastics for Testing, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bagsik, A., and Schöppner, V., 2011, Mechanical Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling Parts Manufactured With ULTEM* 9085, ANTEC 2011, Boston, MA, May 1–5.
Perez, A. R. T., Roberson, D. A., and Wicker, R. B., 2014, “Fracture Surface Analysis of 3D-Printed Tensile Specimens of Novel ABS-Based Materials,” J. Failure Anal. Prev., 14(3), pp. 343–353. [CrossRef]
Nadooshan, A. A., Daneshmand, S., and Aghanajafi, C., 2007, “Application of RP Technology With Polycarbonate Material for Wind Tunnel Model Fabrication,” Int. J. Mech., Ind. Eng., 1(8), pp. 416–421.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of FDM machine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Build orientations used for the fabrication of ASTM D638 type I specimens. The XYZ, XZY, ZXY terminology is based on ASTM F2921-11.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

FDM building parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

XY plane containing rendered toolpaths generated by insight (left) and actual deposited material (right) for the XYZ orientation using a 0 deg/90 deg RA; (a) and (b) default parameters (CW 0.508 mm, RW 0.508 mm, RRAG 0 mm), (c) and (d) insight revision method parameters (CW 0.432 mm, RW 0.432 mm, RRAG 0 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

XY plane containing rendered toolpaths generated by insight (left) and actual deposited material (right) for the XZY orientation using a 0 deg/90 deg RA; (a) and (b) default parameters (CW 0.508 mm, RW 0.508 mm, RRAG 0 mm), (c) and (d) insight revision method parameters (CW 0.508 mm, RW 0.483 mm, RRAG 0 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

XY plane containing rendered toolpaths generated by insight (left) and actual deposited material (right) for the ZXY orientation using a 0 deg/90 deg RA; (a) and (b) default parameters (CW 0.508 mm, RW 0.508 mm, RRAG 0 mm), (c) and (d) insight revision method parameters (CW 0.559 mm, RW 0.457 mm, RRAG 0 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Optical images in XY building plane of specimens built in the XYZ orientation with airs gaps highlighted by black circles (parameters are set in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Optical images in XY building plane of specimens built in the XZY orientation with airs gaps highlighted by black circles (parameters are set in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Optical images in XY building plane of specimens built in the ZXY orientation with airs gaps highlighted by black circles (parameters are set in mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

UTS for (a) XYZ build orientation, (b) XZY build orientation, and (c) ZXY build orientation. Each bar represents the average of at least five specimens and the error bars are ± standard deviation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Young's modulus for (a) XYZ build orientation, (b) XZY build orientation, and (c) ZXY build orientation. Each bar represents the average of at least five specimens and the error bars are ± standard deviation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Tensile strain for (a) XYZ build orientation, (b) XZY build orientation, and (c) ZXY build orientation. Each bar represents the average of at least five specimens and the error bars are ± standard deviation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Building parameter dependency on model dimension. Same building parameter used in two different models, (a) no gap observed in a 8.1 mm by 8.1 mm layer and (b) gap observed highlighted by black circles in a 10.4 mm by 10.4 mm layer.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In