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

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,

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

## Abstract

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.

<>

## Figures

Fig. 1

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

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

Fig. 3

Tensile testing setup of a printed specimen

Fig. 4

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

Fig. 5

Comparison of Young's modulus of tensile specimens

Fig. 6

Comparison of yield strength of tensile specimens

Fig. 7

Comparison of strain at yield point of tensile specimens

Fig. 8

Comparison of failure strength of tensile specimens

Fig. 9

Comparison of strain at failure of tensile specimens

Fig. 10

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

Fig. 11

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

Fig. 12

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

Fig. 13

Failed injection-molded tensile test specimens

Fig. 14

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

Fig. 15

Comparison of Young's modulus of compression test specimens

Fig. 16

Comparison of yield strength of compression test specimens

Fig. 17

Comparison of strain at yield point of compression test specimens

Fig. 18

Comparison of failure strength of compression test specimens

Fig. 19

Comparison of strain at failure of compression test specimens

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

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

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

## 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 Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections