0
Research Papers

Analysis and Numerical Simulation of the Structural Performance of Fused Deposition Modeling Samples With Variable Infill Values

[+] Author and Article Information
Steffany N. Cerda-Avila

Facultad de Ingeniería,
Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosí,
San Luis Potosí 78290, México
e-mail: steffany.noemi@gmail.com

Hugo I. Medellín-Castillo

Facultad de Ingeniería,
Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosí,
San Luis Potosí 78290, México
e-mail: hugoivanmc@uaslp.mx

Dirk F. de Lange

Facultad de Ingeniería,
Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosí,
San Luis Potosí 78290, México
e-mail: dirk.delange@uaslp.mx

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received September 15, 2017; final manuscript received September 6, 2018; published online December 20, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Erdogan Madenci.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 141(2), 021005 (Dec 20, 2018) (7 pages) Paper No: MATS-17-1270; doi: 10.1115/1.4041854 History: Received September 15, 2017; Revised September 06, 2018

The prediction of the structural performance of additive manufacturing (AM) parts has become one of the main challenges to boost the use of AM in industry. The structural properties of AM are very important in order to design and fabricate parts not only of any geometrical shape but also with variable or customized mechanical properties. While AM experimental studies are common in the literature, a limited number of investigations have focused on the analysis and prediction of the mechanical properties of AM parts using theoretical and numerical approaches, such as the finite element method (FEM); however, their results have been not accurate yet. Thus, more research work is needed in order to develop reliable prediction models able to estimate the mechanical performance of AM parts before fabrication. In this paper, the analysis and numerical simulation of the structural performance of fused deposition modeling (FDM) samples with variable infill values is presented. The aim is to predict the mechanical performance of FDM components using numerical models. Thus, several standard tensile test specimens were fabricated in an FDM system using different infill values, a constant layer thickness, one shell perimeter, and polylactic acid (PLA) material. These samples were measured and modeled in a computer-aided design (CAD) system before performing the experimental tensile tests. Numerical models and simulations based on the FEM method were then developed and carried out in order to predict the structural performance of the specimens. Finally, the experimental and numerical results were compared and conclusions drawn.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Durgun, I. , and Ertan, R. , 2014, “Experimental Investigation of FDM Process for Improvement of Mechanical Properties and Production Cost,” Rapid Prototyping J., 20(3), pp. 228–235. [CrossRef]
Rodríguez, J. F. , Thomas, J. P. , and Renaud, J. E. , 2001, “Mechanical Behavior of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) Fused Deposition Materials. Experimental Investigation,” Rapid Prototyping J., 7(3), pp. 148–158. [CrossRef]
Torres, J. , Cole, M. , Owji, A. , DeMastry, Z. , and Gordon, A. P. , 2016, “An Approach for Mechanical Property Optimization of Fused Deposition Modeling With Polylactic Acid Via Design of Experiments,” Rapid Prototyping J., 22(2), pp. 387–404. [CrossRef]
Upcraft, S. , and Fletcher, R. , 2003, “The Rapid Prototyping Technologies,” Assem. Autom., 23(4), pp. 318–330. [CrossRef]
Górski, F. , Kuczko, W. , Wichniarek, R. , and Hamrol, A. , 2015, “Computation of Mechanical Properties of Parts Manufactured by Fused Deposition Modeling Using Finite Element Method,” Ten th International Conference on Soft Computing Models in Industrial and Environmental Applications, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 368, A. Herrero , J. Sedano , B. Baruque , H. Quiantián , and E. Corchado , eds., Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
Rayegani, F. , and Onwubolu, G. C. , 2014, “Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) Process Parameter Prediction and Optimization Using Group Method for Data Handling (GMDH) and Differential Evolution (DE),” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 73(1–4), pp. 509–519. [CrossRef]
Ching Ang, K. , Fai Leong, K. , and Kai Chua, C. , 2006, “Investigation of the Mechanical Properties and Porosity Relationships in Fused Deposition Modelling-Fabricated Porous Structures,” Rapid Prototyping J., 12(2), pp. 100–105. [CrossRef]
Lazontti, A. , Grasso, M. , Staiano, G. , and Martorelli, M. , 2015, “The Impact of Process Parameters on Mechanical Properties of Parts Fabricated in PLA With an Open-Source 3-D Printer,” Rapid Prototyping J., 21(5), pp. 604–617. [CrossRef]
Carneiro, O. S. , Silva, A. F. , and Gomes, R. , 2015, “Fused Deposition Modeling With Polypropylene,” Mater. Des., 83, pp. 768–776. [CrossRef]
Rezayat, H. , Zhou, W. , Siriruk, A. , Penumadu, D. , and Babu, S. S. , 2015, “Structure-Mechanical Property Relationship in Fused Deposition Modelling,” Mater. Sci. Technol., 31(8), pp. 895–903. [CrossRef]
ASTM, 2014, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM D638.
3D Matter, 2015, “What Is the Influence of Infill %, Layer Height and Infill Pattern on my 3D Prints?,” 3D Matter, West Conshohocken, PA, accessed July 20, 2018 http://my3dmatter.com/influence-infill-layer-height-pattern/

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Type I for tensile test specimens [11]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Finite element method models: (a) 37.58% infill specimen, 536 978 elements, (b) 65.70% infill specimen, 588 291 elements, and (c) 96.61% infill specimen, 705 377 elements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Finite element method boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Tensile test of one specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Microstructures and porosity of the real FDM test specimens (left) and CAD specimens (right): (a) 37% infill, (b) 37.58% infill, (c) 54% infill, (d) 65.70% infill, (e) 82% infill, and (f) 96.61% infill

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Equivalent elastic modulus versus infill percentage

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In