Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 154–164 | Cite as

Failure Analysis and Anisotropy Evaluation of 3D-Printed Tensile Test Specimens of Different Geometries and Print Raster Patterns

Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed

Abstract

Anisotropic mechanical properties related to build orientation is a characteristic of parts fabricated with 3D printing technologies. In the development of new materials for 3D printing processes, understanding the effects of 3D printer build orientation and raster pattern on physical property and failure mode differences is extremely important. While there is currently no standard for the evaluation of build orientation-based mechanical performance, such analysis has typically been achieved through the fabrication and scrutiny of tensile and other test coupons which were printed in different build orientations. In some cases, printing specimens in the ZXY (or vertical) build orientation can be difficult due to the capability of a given 3D printer platform. There are also multiple tensile test specimen geometries specified in the ASTM D638 standard for the tensile testing of polymer materials and understanding which specimen geometry works best for 3D printing is not currently well understood. The work presented here explores the effect of tensile test specimen geometry on the anisotropy of mechanical properties related to the build orientation of tensile test specimens. The test coupons were fabricated using a material extrusion 3D printing platform based on fused deposition modeling technology using a grade of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene not typically used in 3D printing in order to simulate the testing of a new material. The effects of raster pattern and the geometric dependence of mechanical property anisotropy were explored, and validation of the use of “faux vertical” specimens in lieu of ZXY-printed specimens was demonstrated. Finally, scanning electron microscopy was used to perform fractography on the various versions of the printed tensile test specimens in order to determine the effect of raster pattern on failure mode.

Keywords

Fused deposition modeling ASTM standards Failure analysis Layer orientation Tensile testing Anisotropic mechanical property 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work presented here was performed in the W.M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation (Keck Center) and the Department of Metallurgical, Materials and Biomedical Engineering (MMBME) at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). The authors are grateful for the internal support from the Keck Center and use of the scanning electron microscopy complex in the MMBME department. Funding for this work was provided by the AFOSR through the Young Investigator Program (YIP) under Grant Number FA9550-14-1-0260.

References

  1. 1.
    C.W. Hull, Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography. U.S. Patent No. 4,575,330. 11 March 1986Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASTM F2924-14, Standard specification for additive manufacturing titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium with powder bed fusion (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM F3001-14, Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) with Powder Bed Fusion (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM F3049-14, Standard Guide for Characterizing Properties of Metal Powders Used for Additive Manufacturing Processes (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASTM F3055-14a, Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Nickel Alloy (UNS N07718) with Powder Bed Fusion (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM F3056-14e1, Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing Nickel Alloy (UNS N06625) with Powder Bed Fusion (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM F3122-14, Standard Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Metal Materials Made via Additive Manufacturing Processes (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM F2792-12a, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM 52921:13, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies (ISO/ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ASTM F3091M-14, Standard Specification for Powder Bed Fusion of Plastic Materials (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.R. Torrado, C.M. Shemelya, J.D. English, Y. Lin, R.B. Wicker, D.A. Roberson, Characterizing the effect of additives to ABS on the mechanical property anisotropy of specimens fabricated by material extrusion 3D printing. Addit. Manuf. 6, 16–29 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2015.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A.R. Torrado Perez, D.A. Roberson, R.B. Wicker, Fracture surface analysis of 3D-printed tensile specimens of novel ABS-based materials. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 14(3), 343–353 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Shaffer, K. Yang, J. Vargas, M.A. Di Prima, W. Voit, On reducing anisotropy in 3D printed polymers via ionizing radiation. Polymer (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.polymer.2014.07.054 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Bellini, S. Güçeri, Mechanical characterization of parts fabricated using fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp. J. 9, 252–264 (2003). doi: 10.1108/13552540310489631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O.S. Es-Said, J. Foyos, R. Noorani, M. Mendelson, R. Marloth, B.A. Pregger, Effect of layer orientation on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples. Mater. Manuf. Process. 15, 107–122 (2000). doi: 10.1080/10426910008912976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Hague, S. Mansour, N. Saleh, R. Harris, Materials analysis of stereolithography resins for use in rapid manufacturing. J. Mater. Sci. 39, 2457–2464 (2004). doi: 10.1023/B:JMSC.0000020010.73768.4a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. Vega, J. Clements, T. Lam, A. Abad, B. Fritz, N. Ula et al., The effect of layer orientation on the mechanical properties and microstructure of a polymer. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 20, 978–988 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s11665-010-9740-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Bagsik, V. Schoeppner, E. Klemp, in 4th International Scientific Conference on Polymeric Materials (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Hague, S. Mansour, N. Saleh, Material and design considerations for rapid manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42, 4691–4708 (2004). doi: 10.1080/00207840410001733940 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Caulfield, P.E. McHugh, S. Lohfeld, Dependence of mechanical properties of polyamide components on build parameters in the SLS process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 182(1), 477–488 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM D638, Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S.-H. Ahn, M. Montero, D. Odell, S. Roundy, P.K. Wright, Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp. J. 8, 248–257 (2002). doi: 10.1108/13552540210441166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A.R. Torrado Perez, Defeating Anisotropy in Material Extrusion 3D Printing via Materials Development, Ph.D. Dissertation, Materials Science and Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D.A. Roberson, A.R. TorradoPerez, C.M. Shemelya, A. Rivera, E. MacDonald, R.B. Wicker, Comparison of stress concentrator fabrication for 3D printed polymeric izod impact test specimens. Addit. Manuf. 7, 1–11 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2015.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polymer Extrusion Lab, W.M. Keck Center for 3D InnovationThe University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Metallurgical, Materials and Biomedical EngineeringThe University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations