4.7 Article

Fracture and structural performance of adhesively bonded 3D-printed PETG single lap joints under different printing parameters

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103087

关键词

Fracture; 3D printing; Single lap joint; Finite element analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the fracture behavior of adhesively bonded 3D-printed joints using PETG material. By analyzing different 3D printing parameters and adhesive layer thickness, the mechanical behavior of PETG joints is determined, providing valuable insights for the development of new designs with higher strength and better structural performance.
The present study, deals with fracture behavior of adhesively bonded 3D-printed joints. Polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) is used to print standard specimens with different printing parameters (raster angle, raster width, and layer thickness) using fused deposition modeling (FDM) process. Moreover, adhesive layer with different thicknesses is employed to determine effects of adhesive layer thickness on the structural integrity of 3D-printed joints. By a series of tensile tests on the single lap joint specimens, influence of above-mentioned 3D printing parameters on the mechanical behavior of PETG joints is determined. Moreover, numerical study was conducted to verify experimental results and provide enhanced knowledge on fracture behavior of these types of joints. The nonlinear 3D finite element model of the joint supports mechanical characteristics of both 3D-printed adherends and adhesive materials. The effect of above mentioned 3D printing parameters in stress distribution and failure behavior of the joints are examined and reported. Considering a growing interest in FDM 3D printing technology in manufacturing and numerous applications of adhesively bonded joints, reported results are beneficial for future developments of new designs of 3D printed adhesively bonded products with a higher strength and better structural performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据