4.4 Article

Quality optimization of FDM-printed (fused deposition modeling) components based on differential scanning calorimetry

期刊

MATERIALS TESTING
卷 64, 期 10, 页码 1544-1551

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/mt-2022-0199

关键词

additive manufacturing; composite material; differential scanning calorimetry; fused deposition modeling; heat tower

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fused deposition modeling has become the most common 3D printing technology due to its easy application and low price. This study investigates 16 different filaments and concludes that the optimal printing quality is achieved with temperatures on the colder end of the range between melting and decomposition, using the findings of differential scanning calorimetry.
Fused deposition modeling has become the most common 3D printing technology in both the industry and the private sector, due to its easy application and low price. Although some companies provide parameter sets that are perfectly adapted for their machines and filaments, a great variety of materials that can be processed on arbitrary printers are also available. Usually, the operator has to figure out ideal printing parameters in order to achieve high-quality results. In this work, an approach is presented relating the conclusions of differential scanning calorimetry, including the melting and glass transition temperatures and the decomposition points, to the printout quality. To give an overview of the common materials and to correlate the behavior of the printing parameters, 16 different filaments categorized into groups of plastics without additives, metals and carbon, woods, and stones have been investigated. Heat towers have been printed with each filament, whereby the individual floors in 5 degrees C steps represent the nozzle temperatures and show features for direct comparison. As a main result, it is shown that the optimal printing quality is achieved with temperatures on the colder end of the range between melting and decomposition.

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

4.4
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