Advertisement

Effect of Counter-Gravity 3D Printing on PLA Interlayer Fracture Energy

  • H. NooriEmail author
  • C. C. Lytle
Conference paper
  • 48 Downloads
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

The multiaxial 3D printing process can reduce the manufacturing time and open the new way for the production of graded materials. It will also expand the application of sustainable additive manufacturing for repair and retrofit purposes. In this study, the effect of counter-gravity deposition on interlayer fracture energy of extruded PLA material was investigated. The rectangular samples with one-layer thickness were 3D printed at three orientations of 0°, 90°, and 180° with respect to the direction of gravity force. The samples were subjected to tensile loading perpendicular to the interlayer areas, and the fracture energy was obtained from the calculation of the area under force–displacement curves. The effect of the nozzle orifice diameter on fracture energy was assessed in conjunction with the deposition orientation. The ratio of nozzle orifice diameter to deposition height was 1 for all samples that were made with different nozzle diameters of 0.6 and 0.8 mm. The interlayer fracture type was observed for all samples. For both nozzle diameters, the statistical analysis of the interlayer fracture energies showed no significant difference for the samples that were 3D printed at different orientations.

Keywords

3D printing Deposition orientation Fracture energy Multiaxial deposition 

References

  1. 1.
    Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D (2018) Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B-Eng 143:172–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ligon SC, Liska R, Stampfl J, Gurr M, Mülhaupt R (2017) Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev 117:10212–10290.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Song Y, Li Y, Song W, Yee K, Lee K-Y, Tagarielli VL (2017) Measurements of the mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed PLA. Mater Des 123:154–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chacón JM, Caminero MA, García-Plaza E, Núñez PJ (2017) Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection. Mater Des 124:143–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aliheidari N, Christ J, Tripuraneni R, Nadimpalli S, Ameli A (2018) Interlayer adhesion and fracture resistance of polymers printed through melt extrusion additive manufacturing process. Mater Des 156:351–361.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noori H (2019) Interlayer fracture energy of 3D-printed PLA material. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 101:1959–1965.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-3031-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Popescu D, Zapciu A, Amza C, Baciu F, Marinescu R (2018) FDM process parameters influence over the mechanical properties of polymer specimens: a review. Polym Test 69:157–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.05.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL (2017) Experimental investigation of time-dependent mechanical properties of PC-ABS prototypes processed by FDM additive manufacturing process. Mater Lett 193:58–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2017.01.104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jung JW, Lee J-S, Cho D-W (2016) Computer-aided multiple-head 3D printing system for printing of heterogeneous organ/tissue constructs. Sci Rep 6:21685.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Butt J, Onimowo DA, Gohrabian M, Sharma T, Shirvani H (2018) A desktop 3D printer with dual extruders to produce customised electronic circuitry. Front Mech Eng 13(4):528–534.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-018-0502-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilkey WD, Pilkey DF (2008) Peterson’s Stress Concentration Factors, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, p 84Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations