Advertisement

Metals and Materials International

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1312–1325 | Cite as

3D Printed Parts with Honeycomb Internal Pattern by Fused Deposition Modelling; Experimental Characterization and Production Optimization

  • Mahmoud MoradiEmail author
  • Saleh Meiabadi
  • Alexander Kaplan
Article
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

In the present study additive manufacturing of Polylactic acid by fused deposition modeling were investigated based on statistical analysis. The honeycomb internal pattern was employed to build inside of specimens due to its remarkable capability to resist mechanical loads. Simplify 3D was utilized to slice the 3D model and to adjust fixed parameters. Layer thickness, infill percentage, and extruder temperature were considered as controlled variables, while maximum failure load (N), elongation at break (mm), part weight (g), and build time (min) were selected as output responses and analysed by response surface method. Analysis of variance results identified layer thickness as the major controlled variable for all responses. Interaction of infill percentage and extruder temperature had a significant influence on elongation at break and therefore, tough fracture of printed parts. The input parameters were optimized to materialize tow criteria; the first one was to rise maximum failure load and the second was to attain tough fracture and lessen build time and part weight at a time. Optimal solutions were examined by experimental fabrication to evaluate the efficiency of the optimization method. There was a good agreement between empirical results and response surface method predictions which confirmed the reliability of predictive models. The optimal setting to fulfill the first criterion could bring on a specimen with more than 1500 (N) maximum failure load and less than 9 (g) weight.

Keywords

3D printing Fused deposition modelling Mechanical properties Part weight Response surface method 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    M.P. Groover, Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems, 4th edn. (Wiley, Hoboken, 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, 2nd edn. (Springer, Berlin, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    X. Liu, M. Zhang, S. Li, L. Si, J. Peng, Y. Hu, Mechanical property parametric appraisal of fused deposition modeling parts based on the gray Taguchi method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 89(5–8), 2387 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Dong, G. Wijaya, Y. Tang, Y.F. Zhao, Optimizing process parameters of fused deposition modeling by Taguchi method for the fabrication of lattice structures. Addit. Manuf. 19, 62–72 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Mahmood, A.J. Qureshi, D. Talamona, Taguchi based process optimization for dimension and tolerance control for fused deposition modelling. Addit. Manuf. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.03.009 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.M. Pandey, K. Thrimurthulu, N. Venkata Reddy, Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by using a multicriteria genetic algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42(19), 4069–4089 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L.M. Galantucci, F. Lavecchia, G. Percoco, Quantitative analysis of a chemical treatment to reduce roughness of parts fabricated using fused deposition modelling. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 59(1), 247–250 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.K. Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Experimental investigation and empirical modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement. J. Adv. Res. 3, 81–90 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Rao, D.P. Rai, Optimization of fused deposition modelling process using teaching–learning based optimization algorithm. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 19(1), 587–603 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S.K. Padhi, R.K. Sahu, S.S. Mahapatra, H.C. Das, A.K. Sood, B. Patro, A.K. Mondal, Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters using a fuzzy inference system coupled with Taguchi philosophy. Adv. Manuf. 5(3), 231–242 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Gardan, A. Makke, N. Recho, Improving the fracture toughness of 3D printed thermoplastic polymers by fused deposition modeling. Int. J. Fract. 210(1–2), 1–15 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Peng, X. Xiao, R. Yue, Process parameter optimization for fused deposition modeling using response surface methodology combined with fuzzy inference system. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73(1–4), 87–100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Sajan, T.D. John, M. Sivadasan, N.K. Singh, An investigation on circularity error of components processed on fused deposition modeling (FDM). Mater. Today Proc. 5, 1327–1334 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Gautam, S. Idapalapati, S. Feih, Printing and characterisation of Kagome lattice structures by fused deposition modelling. Mater. Des. 137, 266–275 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. Ning, W. Cong, J. Wei, S. Wang, Additive manufacturing of CFRP composites using fused deposition modeling: effects of carbon fiber content and length, in ASME 2015 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, June 812 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Plymill, R. Minneci, D.A. Greeley, J. Gritton, Graphene and Carbon Nanotube PLA Composite Feedstock Development for Fused Deposition Modeling. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects (2016). http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1955
  18. 18.
    O. Ivanova, C. Williams, T. Campbell, Additive manufacturing (AM) and nanotechnology: promises and challenges. Rapid Prototyp. 19(5), 353–364 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Gupta, A. Kate, M. Dhakad, C.P. Sharma, M.K. Ghosh, A review of rapid manufacturing and rapid tooling of FDM based material. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Res. 1(7), 62–66 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Moradi, O. Mehrabi, T. Azdast, K.H.Y. Benyounis, Enhancement of low power CO2 laser cutting process for injection molded polycarbonate. Opt. Laser Technol. 96, 208–218 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Moradi, A. Mohazabpak, Statistical modelling and optimization of laser percussion micro-drilling on Inconel 718 sheet using response surface methodology. J. Lasers Eng. 39(9–6), 313–331 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Moradi, E. Golchin, Investigation on the effects of process parameters on laser percussion drilling using finite element methodology; statistical modelling and optimization. Latin Am. J. Solids Struct. 14(3), 464–484 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Moradi, H. Abdollahi, Statistical modelling and optimization of the laser percussion microdrilling of thin sheet stainless steel. J. Lasers Eng. 40(1–2), 375–393 (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Y.F. Buys, A.N.A. Aznan, H. Anuar, Mechanical properties, morphology, and hydrolytic degradation behavior of polylactic acid/natural rubber blends. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 290, 012077 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/290/1/012077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Institute of Metals and Materials 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringMalayer UniversityMalayerIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringÉcole de Technologie Supérieure, CanadaMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Engineering Sciences and MathematicsLulea University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations