4.6 Article

An assessment of the effect of printing orientation, density, and filler pattern on the compressive performance of 3D printed ABS structures by fuse deposition

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00170-017-1314-x

关键词

3D printing; Filling patterns; Compression; Ultimate compressive strength; Failure mechanism; Rapid prototyping

资金

  1. Laboratorio Nacional en Innovacion y Desarrollo de Materiales Ligeros para la Industria Automotriz (LANI-Auto) through CONACYT [280425]
  2. PRODEP program [UGTO-PTC-539]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) specimens manufactured by fused deposition are tested under uniaxial compression in order to judge the effectiveness of printing orientation, density, and filler patterns in terms of stiffness and strength per printing time. The compressive properties of the 3D printed materials along the three orthogonal directions are studied on cylindrical specimens filled with honeycomb and rectangular patterns. In order to achieve different densities, five filler percentages (0, 20, 30, 40, and 100%) are employed for each type of structure. Specimens filled with honeycomb patterns are stiffer and stronger than those with rectangular patterns only when they are oriented along the applied load. However, structures with rectangular patterns only require roughly half of printing time of those filled honeycomb cells, which yields effective rectangular structures with high elastic properties per printing time. Stress-strain curves reveal that compressive strength and stiffness increase with respect to the structure density. Patterns printed along the loading direction present higher strength and stiffness than on the other orthogonal orientations. Local buckling and compressive failure mechanisms are identified for light weight and heavy structures, respectively. A combination of shear and local buckling failure appeared in honeycomb structures printed transversely with relative densities around 20-40%.

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

4.6
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