Advertisement

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 511–518 | Cite as

Tensile and Fatigue Analysis of 3D-Printed Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol

  • Grzegorz DolzykEmail author
  • Sungmoon Jung
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

This paper investigates the tensile and fatigue behavior of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) parts manufactured by fused filament fabrication (FFF). PETG is a thermoplastic polyester that is available as a filament for commercial desktop 3D printers. As the functionality of 3D printing components for end-part use grows, it is essential to characterize mechanical properties of available materials in a quasistatic and dynamic loading condition. One of the main issues of FFF components is the anisotropy of mechanical properties that is induced by part-build orientation and raster orientation. The objective of this study was to quantify anisotropy of PETG coupons by testing against four raster orientations—longitudinal, transversal, diagonal and crosshatched. Quasistatic tensile tests were performed on two specimen types that yielded the highest ultimate tensile strength and modulus of elasticity for longitudinal specimens. Measured strength varied from 41.58 to 48.04 MPa for the weakest and strongest orientations which correspond to 83–96% of PETG strength processed by injection molding. Tensile–tensile fatigue tests with a stress ratio of R = 0.1 were performed at 90, 80, 70 and 60% of nominal UTS of each specimen type. SN curves displayed the highest fatigue life of the longitudinal specimen followed by the crosshatched specimen at 80–90% UTS stress level that were both eventually outperformed by the diagonal specimen at the 60% UTS stress level. Finally, a fractography analysis conducted on fatigued specimens displayed signs of plastic failure for all orientations. This paper provides an experimental analysis of PETG tensile and fatigue properties that have not been found in the literature. Results show that PETG is a good candidate for FFF technology because of the competitive mechanical properties and lesser anisotropy.

Keywords

Anisotropy Fatigue analysis Tensile strength Fractography Fused filament fabrication 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    O.A. Mohamed, S.H. Masood, J.L. Bhowmik, Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters: a review of current research and future prospects. Adv. Manuf. 3(1), 42–53 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Wohlers, Wohlers report 2017 (Wohlers Associates Inc, Fort Collins, 2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.H. Lee, J. Abdullah, Z.A. Khan, Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for production of flexible ABS object. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169(1), 54–61 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.-H. Ahn, M. Montero, D. Odell, S. Roundy, P.K. Wright, Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp. J. 8(4), 248–257 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Ziemian, M. Okwara, C.W. Ziemian, Tensile and fatigue behavior of layered acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Rapid Prototyp. J. 21(3), 270–278 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Ziemian, M. Sharma, S. Ziemian, Anisotropic mechanical properties of ABS parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling, in Mechanical Engineering ed. by Murat Gokcek (InTech, 2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.F. Afrose, S. Masood, P. Iovenitti, M. Nikzad, I. Sbarski, Effects of part build orientations on fatigue behaviour of FDM-processed PLA material. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 1(1–2), 21–28 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.J. Laureto, J.M. Pearce, Anisotropic mechanical property variance between ASTM D638-14 type i and type iv fused filament fabricated specimens. Polym. Test. 68, 294–301 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Chacón, M. Caminero, E. García-Plaza, P. Núñez, 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 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Wu, P. Geng, G. Li, D. Zhao, H. Zhang, J. Zhao, 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), 5834–5846 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O. Carneiro, A. Silva, R. Gomes, Fused deposition modeling with polypropylene. Mater. Des. 83, 768–776 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Fischer, V. Schöppner, Fatigue behavior of FDM parts manufactured with Ultem 9085. JOM 69(3), 563–568 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Domingo-Espin, J.M. Puigoriol-Forcada, A.-A. Garcia-Granada, J. Lluma, S. Borros, G. Reyes, Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused deposition modeling polycarbonate parts. Mater. Des. 83, 670–677 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.M. Puigoriol-Forcada, A. Alsina, A.G. Salazar-Martín, G. Gomez-Gras, M.A. Pérez, Flexural fatigue properties of polycarbonate fused-deposition modelling specimens. Mater. Des. 155, 414–421 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Martínez, F. Aparicio, A. García, J. Páez, G. Ferichola, Improving occupant safety in coach rollover. Int. J. Crashworthiness 8(2), 121–132 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Szykiedans, W. Credo, D. Osiński, Selected mechanical properties of PETG 3-D prints. Proc. Eng. 177, 455–461 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Goh, S. Agarwala, G. Goh, V. Dikshit, S.L. Sing, W.Y. Yeong, Additive manufacturing in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): challenges and potential. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 63, 140–151 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.K. Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts. Mater. Des. 31(1), 287–295 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A.R. Torrado, D.A. Roberson, Failure analysis and anisotropy evaluation of 3D-printed tensile test specimens of different geometries and print raster patterns. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 16(1), 154–164 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Letcher, B. Rankouhi, S. Javadpour, Experimental study of mechanical properties of additively manufactured ABS plastic as a function of layer parameters, in ASME 2015 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015), pp. V02AT02A018-V002AT002A018Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Croccolo, M. De Agostinis, G. Olmi, Experimental characterization and analytical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of fused deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30. Comput. Mater. Sci. 79, 506–518 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. Rankouhi, S. Javadpour, F. Delfanian, T. Letcher, Failure analysis and mechanical characterization of 3D printed ABS with respect to layer thickness and orientation. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 16(3), 467–481 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Lee, A. Huang, Fatigue analysis of FDM materials. Rapid Prototyp. J. 19(4), 291–299 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Q. Sun, G. Rizvi, C. Bellehumeur, P. Gu, Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyp. J. 14(2), 72–80 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A.R.T. 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
  26. 26.
    S. Lampman, Characterization and Failure Analysis of Plastics (ASM International, Novelty, 2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. Mae, M. Omiya, K. Kishimoto, Tensile behavior of polypropylene blended with bimodal distribution of styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene particle size. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 107(6), 3520–3528 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringFlorida A&M University-Florida State University College of EngineeringTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations