Advertisement

Mechanical property of FDM printed ABS: influence of printing parameters

  • M. SamykanoEmail author
  • S. K. Selvamani
  • K. Kadirgama
  • W. K. Ngui
  • G. Kanagaraj
  • K. Sudhakar
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) technology works with specialized 3D printers and production-grade thermoplastics to build robust, durable, and dimensionally stable parts with the best accuracy and repeatability of any other available 3D printing technology. FDM is one of the highly used additive manufacturing technology due to its ability to manufacture very complex geometries. However, the critical problems with this technology have been to balance the ability to produce esthetically appealing products with functionality and properties at the lowest cost possible. In this study, three major process parameters such as layer height, raster angle, and infill density have been considered to study their effects on mechanical properties of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) as this material is widely used industrial thermoplastic in FDM technology. The test results show a clear demonstration of the considered factors over the mechanical variables measured. Response surface methodology is used for the validation of the experimental data and the future prediction of the test results. It was found that the optimum parameters for 3D printing using ABS are 80% infill percentage, 0.5 mm layer thickness, and 65° raster angle. The achieved experimental ultimate tensile strength, elastic modulus, yield strength, fracture strain, and toughness (energy absorption) are 31.57 MPa, 774.50 MPa, 19.95 MPa, 0.094 mm/mm, and 2.28 Jm−3, respectively. Mathematical equation has been developed using surface response methodology which can be used to predict the ABS tensile properties numerically and also to predict the optimum parameter for ultimate properties.

Keywords

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) Tensile test Fused deposition modeling Layer thickness Infill percentage Raster angle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Universiti Malaysia Pahang (www.ump.edu.my) for the financial support provided under the grants RDU170320 and RDU1703150.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee C et al (2007) Measurement of anisotropic compressive strength of rapid prototyping parts. J Mater Process Technol 187:627–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dudek P (2013) FDM 3D printing technology in manufacturing composite elements. Arch Metall Mater 58(4)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang S, Reyes EI, Moon KS, Rumpf RC, Kim NS (2015) Thermo-mechanical characterization of metal/polymer composite filaments and printing parameter study for fused deposition modeling in the 3D printing process. J Electron Mater 44(3):771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu W, Geng P, Li G, Zhao D, Zhang H, 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):5834–5846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amal Owida, R.C., Shital Patel and Yos Morsi, Xiumei Mo, Artery vessel fabrication using the combined fused deposition modeling and electrospinning techniques. Rapid Prototyp J, 2011. 17(1): p. 37–44Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hossain MS et al (2014) Improved mechanical properties of fused deposition modeling-manufactured parts through build parameter modifications. J Manuf Sci Eng 136(6)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mironov V, Boland T, Trusk T, Forgacs G, Markwald RR (2003) Organ printing: computer-aided jet-based 3D tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol 21(4):157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richter C, Lipson H (2011) Untethered hovering flapping flight of a 3D-printed mechanical insect. Artificial Life 17(2):73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Croccolo D (2013) Experimental characterization and analytical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of fused deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30. Comput Mater Sci 79Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong S, Sanchez C, du H, Kim N (2015) Fabrication of 3D printed metal structures by use of high-viscosity cu paste and a screw extruder. J Electron Mater 44(3):836–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Di Angelo L, Di Stefano P, Marzola A (2017) Surface quality prediction in FDM additive manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93(9–12):3655–3662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    NatalieRudolph CLH (2017) Investigation of mechanical anisotropy of the fused filament fabrication process via customized tool path generation. Addit Manuf 16:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cantrell JT, Rohde S, Damiani D, Gurnani R, DiSandro L, Anton J, Young A, Jerez A, Steinbach D, Kroese C, Ifju PG (2017) Experimental characterization of the mechanical properties of 3D-printed ABS and polycarbonate parts. Rapid Prototyp J 23(4):811–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keleş Ö, Blevins CW, Bowman KJ (2017) Effect of build orientation on the mechanical reliability of 3D printed ABS. Rapid Prototyp J 23(2):320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uddin M et al (2017) Evaluating mechanical properties and failure mechanisms of fused deposition modeling acrylonitrile butadiene styrene parts. J Manuf Sci Eng 139(8):081018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seidl M et al (2017) Mechanical properties of products made of abs with respect to individuality of fdm production processes. Modern Machinery Science Journal 2:1748–1751Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balderrama-Armendariz CO et al (2018) Torsion analysis of the anisotropic behavior of FDM technology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:1–11Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leite M, Varanda A, Ribeiro AR, Silva A, Vaz MF (2018) Mechanical properties and water absorption of surface modified ABS 3D printed by fused deposition modelling. Rapid Prototyp J 24(1):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quan Z, Suhr J, Yu J, Qin X, Cotton C, Mirotznik M, Chou TW (2018) Printing direction dependence of mechanical behavior of additively manufactured 3D preforms and composites. Compos Struct 184:917–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anitha R, Arunachalam S, Radhakrishnan P (2001) Critical parameters influencing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling. J Mater Process Technol 118(1–3):385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee B, Abdullah J, Khan Z (2005) Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for production of flexible ABS object. J Mater Process Technol 169(1):54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Onwubolu GC, Rayegani F (2014) Characterization and optimization of mechanical properties of ABS parts manufactured by the fused deposition modelling process. International Journal of Manufacturing Engineering 2014:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Onwubolu GC (2014) Characterization and optimization of mechanical properties of ABS parts manufactured by the fused deposition modelling process. International Journal of Manufacturing Engineering. 2014Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jaiswal P, Patel J, Rai R (2018) Build orientation optimization for additive manufacturing of functionally graded material objects. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 1–13Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ahn S-H (2002) Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyping 8(4):248–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rankouhi B, Javadpour S, Delfanian F, Letcher T (2016) Failure analysis and mechanical characterization of 3D printed ABS with respect to layer thickness and orientation. J Fail Anal Prev 16(3):467–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Astm D (2003) 638 Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Torres J, Cotelo J, Karl J, Gordon AP (2015) Mechanical property optimization of FDM PLA in shear with multiple objectives. Jom 67(5):1183–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pelleg J (2012) Mechanical properties of materials, Vol. 190. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beer FP et al (2006) Mechanics of materials. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kut S (2010) A simple method to determine ductile fracture strain in a tensile test of plane specimen’s. Metalurgija 49(4)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Samykano
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. K. Selvamani
    • 1
  • K. Kadirgama
    • 1
  • W. K. Ngui
    • 1
  • G. Kanagaraj
    • 2
  • K. Sudhakar
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversiti Malaysia PahangPekanMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Mechatronics, Thiagarajan College of EngineeringMaduraiIndia

Personalised recommendations