0
Research Papers

Evaluating Mechanical Properties and Failure Mechanisms of Fused Deposition Modeling Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Parts

[+] Author and Article Information
M. S. Uddin

School of Engineering,
University of South Australia,
Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia
e-mail: Mohammad.Uddin@unisa.edu.au

M. F. R. Sidek, M. A. Faizal

School of Engineering,
University of South Australia,
Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia

Reza Ghomashchi

School of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

A. Pramanik

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Curtin University,
Bentley, WA 6845, Australia

Manuscript received November 2, 2016; final manuscript received May 1, 2017; published online June 1, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Sam Anand.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(8), 081018 (Jun 01, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: MANU-16-1582; doi: 10.1115/1.4036713 History: Received November 02, 2016; Revised May 01, 2017

This paper presents a comprehensive experimental study in exploring the influence of key printing parameters on mechanical properties and failure mechanisms of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) material. Three parameters with three levels—layer thickness (0.09 mm, 0.19 mm, and 0.39 mm), printing plane (XY, YZ, and ZX), and printing orientation (horizontal, diagonal, and vertical)—are considered, which form an L27 experimental design. Following L27, tensile and compressive specimens are fabricated and tested. Young's modulus, yield strength, failure strength, and strain of specimens are measured, evaluated, and compared with their injection-molded counterparts. Experimental results indicate that tensile specimens with a layer thickness of 0.09 mm and printing plane orientation of YZ-H reveal the highest stiffness and failure strength. While injection-molded specimen shows the highest yield strength, ductility of printed specimens is 1.45 times larger than that of injection-molded part. YZ along with XY specimens shows a neat and clean standard fracture failure at 45 deg, where the layers reorient themselves followed by stretching before fracture failure, thus providing sufficient ductility as opposed to ZX specimens, which fail along the direction perpendicular to the loading. Compressive XY-H and XY-D specimens have the highest stiffness and yield strength, and failure mechanisms involve initial compression followed by squeezing of layers leading to compactness followed by breakage due to tearing off or fracture of layers. The findings imply that anisotropy of fused deposition modeling (FDM) parts cannot be avoided and hence the appropriate parameters must be chosen, which satisfy the intended properties of the material subject to specific loading scenario.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Bikas, H. , Stavropoulos, P. , and Chryssolouris, G. , 2015, “ Additive Manufacturing Methods and Modelling Approaches: A Critical Review,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 83(1), pp. 389–405.
Butscher, A. , Bohner, M. , Doebelin, N. , Hofmann, S. , and Müller, R. , 2013, “ New Depowdering-Friendly Designs for Three-Dimensional Printing of Calcium Phosphate Bone Substitutes,” Acta Biomater., 9(11), pp. 9149–9158. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vaezi, M. , and Yang, S. , 2015, “ Extrusion-Based Additive Manufacturing of PEEK for Biomedical Applications,” Virtual Phys. Prototyping, 10(3), pp. 123–135. [CrossRef]
Cantrell, J. , Rohde, S., Damiani, D., Gurnani, R., DiSandro, L., Anton, J., Young, A., Jerez, A., Steinbach, D., Kroese, C., and Ifju, P., 2017, “ Experimental Characterization of the Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed ABS and Polycarbonate Parts,” Advancement of Optical Methods in Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 3, S. Yoshida , L. Lamberti , and C. Sciammarella , eds., Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp. 89–105.
Pandremenos, J. , Paralikas, J. , Chryssolouris, G. , Dybala, B. , and Gunnink, J. W. , 2008, “ RM Product Development: Design Principles, Simulation and Tool,” International Conference on Additive Technologies, Ptuj, Slovenia, Sept. 16–18.
Levy, G. N. , Schindel, R. , and Kruth, J. P. , 2003, “ Rapid Manufacturing and Rapid Tooling With Layer Manufacturing (LM) Technologies, State of the Art and Future Perspectives,” CIRP Ann.—Manuf. Technol., 52(2), pp. 589–609. [CrossRef]
Huang, Y. , Leu, M. C. , Mazumder, J. , and Donmez, A. , 2015, “ Additive Manufacturing: Current State, Future Potential, Gaps and Needs, and Recommendations,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 137(1), p. 014001. [CrossRef]
Boschetto, A. , and Bottini, L. , 2015, “ Surface Improvement of Fused Deposition Modeling Parts by Barrel Finishing,” Rapid Prototyping J., 21(6), pp. 686–696. [CrossRef]
Durgun, I. , and Ertan, R. , 2014, “ Experimental Investigation of FDM Process for Improvement of Mechanical Properties and Production Cost,” Rapid Prototyping J., 20(3), pp. 228–235. [CrossRef]
Sood, A. K. , Ohdar, R. K. , and Mahapatra, S. S. , 2009, “ Improving Dimensional Accuracy of Fused Deposition Modelling Processed Part Using Grey Taguchi Method,” Mater. Des., 30(10), pp. 4243–4252. [CrossRef]
Lee, C. S. , Kim, S. G. , Kim, H. J. , and Ahn, S. H. , 2007, “ Measurement of Anisotropic Compressive Strength of Rapid Prototyping Parts,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 187–188, pp. 627–630. [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]
Lanzotti, A. , Grasso, M. , Staiano, G. , and Martorelli, M. , 2015, “ The Impact of Process Parameters on Mechanical Properties of Parts Fabricated in PLA With an Open-Source 3-D Printer,” Rapid Prototyping J., 21(5), pp. 604–617. [CrossRef]
Christiyan, K. G. J. , Chandrasekhar, U. , and Venkateswarlu, K. , 2016, “ A Study on the Influence of Process Parameters on the Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed ABS Composite,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 114(1), p. 012109. [CrossRef]
Croccolo, D. , De Agostinis, M. , and Olmi, G. , 2013, “ Experimental Characterization and Analytical Modelling of the Mechanical Behaviour of Fused Deposition Processed Parts Made of ABS-M30,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 79, pp. 506–518. [CrossRef]
Sood, A. K. , Ohdar, R. K. , and Mahapatra, S. S. , 2012, “ Experimental Investigation and Empirical Modelling of FDM Process for Compressive Strength Improvement,” J. Adv. Res., 3(1), pp. 81–90. [CrossRef]
Tymrak, B. M. , Kreiger, M. , and Pearce, J. M. , 2014, “ Mechanical Properties of Components Fabricated With Open-Source 3-D Printers Under Realistic Environmental Conditions,” Mater. Des., 58, pp. 242–246. [CrossRef]
Nikzad, M. , Masood, S. H. , and Sbarski, I. , 2011, “ Thermo-Mechanical Properties of a Highly Filled Polymeric Composites for Fused Deposition Modeling,” Mater. Des., 32(6), pp. 3448–3456. [CrossRef]
Es-Said, O. S. , Foyos, J. , Noorani, R. , Mendelson, M. , Marloth, R. , and Pregger, B. A. , 2000, “ Effect of Layer Orientation on Mechanical Properties of Rapid Prototyped Samples,” Mater. Manuf. Processes, 15(1), pp. 107–122. [CrossRef]
Panda, S. K. , 2009, “ Optimization of Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) Process Parameters Using Bacterial Foraging Technique,” Intell. Inf. Manage., 1(2), pp. 89–97.
Wang, T.-M. , Xi, J.-T. , and Jin, Y. , 2006, “ A Model Research for Prototype Warp Deformation in the FDM Process,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 33(11), pp. 1087–1096.
Zhang, Y. , and Chou, K. , 2008, “ A Parametric Study of Part Distortions in Fused Deposition Modelling Using Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.: Part B, 222(8), pp. 959–968. [CrossRef]
Wu, W. , Geng, P. , Li, G. , Zhao, D. , Zhang, H. , and Zhao, J. , 2015, “ Influence of Layer Thickness and Raster Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a Comparative Mechanical Study Between PEEK and ABS,” Materials, 8(9), pp. 5834–5846. [CrossRef]
Onwubolu, G. C. , and Rayegani, F. , 2014, “ Characterization and Optimization of Mechanical Properties of ABS Parts Manufactured by the Fused Deposition Modelling Process,” Int. J. Manuf. Eng., 2014, p. 598531.
Mohamed, O. A. , Masood, S. H. , Bhowmik, J. L. , Nikzad, M. , and Azadmanjiri, J. , 2016, “ Effect of Process Parameters on Dynamic Mechanical Performance of FDM PC/ABS Printed Parts Through Design of Experiment,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 25(7), pp. 2922–2935. [CrossRef]
Mohamed, O. A. , Masood, S. H. , and Bhowmik, J. L. , 2015, “ Optimization of Fused Deposition Modeling Process Parameters: A Review of Current Research and Future Prospects,” Adv. Manuf., 3(1), pp. 42–53. [CrossRef]
ASTM, 2014, “ Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM D638-14.
Giboz, J. , Copponnex, T. , and Mélé, P. , 2017, “ Analysis of the Influence of the Injection Molding Process on the Crystallization Kinetics of a HDPE,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 134(1), p. 44239.
Chen, W.-C. , Nguyen, M.-H. , Chiu, W.-H. , Chen, T.-N. , and Tai, P.-H. , 2016, “ Optimization of the Plastic Injection Molding Process Using the Taguchi Method, RSM, and Hybrid GA-PSO,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 83(9–12), pp. 1873–1886. [CrossRef]
Taufik, M. , and Jain, P. K. , 2016, “ A Study of Build Edge Profile for Prediction of Surface Roughness in Fused Deposition Modeling,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 138(6), p. 061002. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Geometry of (a) tensile and (b) compression specimens (unit: mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Example 3D views of specimen setup (plane and orientation) on the printer's working envelope: (a) tensile specimens on three planes and (b) compressive specimens on XY plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Tensile testing setup of a printed specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Representative stress–strain data of tensile specimens printed for layer thickness of 0.09 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of Young's modulus of tensile specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of yield strength of tensile specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of strain at yield point of tensile specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of failure strength of tensile specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of strain at failure of tensile specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Failed tensile test specimens printed at a layer thickness of 0.09 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Failed tensile test specimens printed at a layer thickness of 0.19 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Failed tensile test specimens printed at a layer thickness of 0.39 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Failed injection-molded tensile test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Stress–strain plot of compression test specimens printed at layer thickness of 0.09 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of Young's modulus of compression test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of yield strength of compression test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of strain at yield point of compression test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of failure strength of compression test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of strain at failure of compression test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Failed compression test specimens printed at a layer thickness of 0.09 mm; inset SEM images are representative magnified views of fractured area for XY-H (topmost) and XY-V (bottommost) specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Failed compression test specimens printed at a layer thickness of 0.19 mm; inset SEM images are representative magnified views of fractured area for XY-H specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Failed compression test specimens printed at a layer thickness of 0.39 mm; inset SEM images are representative magnified views of fractured area for ZX-all specimens

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