A comparison of compression molded and additively manufactured short carbon fiber reinforced polyamide‐6 samples and the effect of different infill printing patterns

Abstract

Tensile samples were 3D printed using a commercially available 3D printing material, and the same material was pelletized and hot-pressed. The samples had a 0 , ±45 , and a 90 filling orientation and their tensile modulus and tensile strength of the samples were determined and compared between fabrication methods. A tensile modulus of 7.56 ± 0.35 GPa (0 ), 5.10 ± 0.13 GPa (±45 ), and 4.05 ± 0.13 GPa (90 ) was found, and the same trend was found for the tensile strength, 92.0 ± 9.5 MPa (0 ), 63.3 ± 8.3 MPa (±45 ), and 58.7 ± 2.2 MPa (90 ). The hot-pressed samples possessed a tensile modulus of 8.13 ± 0.8 GPa and tensile strength of 98.3 ± 6.8 MPa, very similar to that of the 0 printed samples. These results could be attributed to the printing mechanism and poor adhesion between each deposited composite layer was observed, contributing to the depressed properties. Thermogravimetric analysis was conducted and the carbon fiber content per weight of the commercially sourced printing material was determined to be 13.9%, and the length of the filaments showed that more than 50% of all measured fragments were between 50 and 150 μm.

Comparison of mechanical properties of 3D-printed and compression-molded wood-polylactic acid (PLA) composites

“…In the AM process, changes can be easily implemented during manufacturing, and production can be more reasonable due to minimal waste. The most common fabrication method using the AM process is fused deposition modelling (FDM), which extrudes the thermoplastic filament (Ngo et al 2018;Chansoda et al 2021;Hendlmeier et al 2021). When the mechanical properties of compression-molded and 3D-printed materials were compared, it was stated that the results obtained in the 3D-printing process were close to those of materials produced using conventional manufacturing techniques (Chandran et al 2021).…”