Fracture toughness of additively manufactured ULTEM 1010

Taylor, Gregory; Anandan, Sudharshan; Murphy, David; Leu, Ming C.; Chandrashekhara, K.

doi:10.1080/17452759.2018.1558494

Cited by 24 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This technology has been used, in aerospace engineering, to fabricate manufacturing tools, functional prototypes, concept models and some complex lightweight parts [238]. In most cases, the material used is UTLEM TM , which is a high-strength thermoplastic [275].…”

Section: Engineering and Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Fused deposition modelling: Current status, methodology, applications and future prospects

Cano-Vicent

Tambuwala

Hassan³

et al. 2021

Additive Manufacturing

201

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Engineering and Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Fused deposition modelling: Current status, methodology, applications and future prospects

Cano-Vicent

Tambuwala

Hassan³

et al. 2021

Additive Manufacturing

201

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Examples include build direction (Zaldivar et al , 2017; Rinaldi et al , 2018; Taylor et al , 2017; Pandelidi et al , 2021), infill density (Rinaldi et al , 2018), raster angle (Gebisa and Lemu, 2018a, 2018b, 2019), air gap (Pandelidi et al , 2021), contour number and contour width (Gebisa and Lemu, 2018a). Various authors have studied the effects of these process parameters using full factorial (Gebisa and Lemu, 2019; Taylor et al , 2019) DoE, which involves running experiments with all possible combination of factors. While full factorial DoE are the most accurate, predictive models, such as Response Surface Methodology (Hasan Nejad et al , 2017; Srinivasan et al , 2020a; Kamoona et al , 2017) and Taguchi DoE (Mostafa et al , 2018; Vishwas et al , 2018; Camposeco-Negrete, 2020; Raffic et al , 2019; Zaman et al , 2019; García-García et al , 2019; Chung Wang et al , 2007) minimizes the number of experimental runs which can significantly reduce cost and time required to conduct the experiments.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples include build direction (Zaldivar et al, 2017;Rinaldi et al, 2018;Taylor et al, 2017;Pandelidi et al, 2021), infill density (Rinaldi et al, 2018), raster angle (Gebisa and Lemu, 2018a, 2018b, 2019, air gap (Pandelidi et al, 2021), contour number and contour width (Gebisa and Lemu, 2018a). Various authors have studied the effects of these process parameters using full factorial (Gebisa and Lemu, 2019;Taylor et al, 2019) -Negrete, 2020;Raffic et al, 2019;Zaman et al, 2019;García-García et al, 2019;Chung Wang et al, 2007) minimizes the number of experimental runs which can significantly reduce cost and time required to conduct the experiments. However, to our knowledge, no published article has reported a comparison between a predictive DoE method with full factorial DoE to verify their accuracy in determining the effects of FFF process parameters on properties of printed parts.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fused filament fabrication of nylon 6/66 copolymer: parametric study comparing full factorial and Taguchi design of experiments

Rashed

Kafi

Simons

et al. 2022

RPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Process parameters in Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) can affect mechanical and surface properties of printed parts. Numerous studies have reported parametric studies of various materials using full factorial and Taguchi design of experiments (DoEs). However, a comparison between the two are not well-established in literature. The purpose of this study is to compare full factorial and Taguchi DoEs to determine the effects of FFF process parameters on mechanical and surface properties of Nylon 6/66 copolymer. In addition, perform in-depth failure mechanism analysis to understand why the process parameters affect the responses. Design/methodology/approach A full factorial DoE was used to determine the effects of FFF process parameters, such as infill density, infill pattern, layer height and raster angle on responses, such as compressive strength, impact strength, surface roughness and manufacturing time of Nylon 6/66. Micro-computed tomography was used to analyse the impact test samples before and after impact and scanning electron microscope was used to understand the failure mechanism of infill and top layers. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) scans of infill and top layers were then taken to determine if a variation in crystallinity existed in different regions of the build. Findings Analysis of variance and main effects plots reveal that infill density has the greatest effect on mechanical and surface properties while manufacturing time is most affected by layer height for the polymer used. A 20% reduction in infill increased impact strength by 19% on average, X-ray images of some of the samples before and after impact tests are presented to understand the reason behind the difference. Moreover, DSC revealed a difference in the degree of crystallinity between the infill and top layers for 80% infill density samples. In addition, Taguchi DoE is realized to be a more efficient technique to determine optimum process parameters for responses that vary linearly as it reduces experimental effort significantly while providing mostly accurate results. Originality/value To the author’s knowledge, no published paper has reported a comparison between predictive DoE method with full factorial DoE to verify their accuracy in determining the effects of FFF process parameters on properties of printed parts. Also, a theory was developed based on DSC results that as the infill is printed faster, it cools slowly compared to the top layers, and hence the infill is in a less crystalline state when compared to the top layers. This increased the ductility of the infill (of 80% infill samples) and thus improved impact absorption.

show abstract

“…In one of the few research articles on ULTEM 1010, the fracture toughness of FDM printed parts was evaluated with varying build orientation and raster angle. 22 Results showed that only the raster angle affected the conditional critical stress intensity factor. With the same previous two build parameters, flexural properties were evaluated by Taylor et al 23 using a full factorial design of experiments (DOE) to observe interactions between the two parameters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…When investigating the effect of initial filament moisture on 3D printed ULTEM 9085, Zaldivar et al 21 concluded that high levels of moisture in the filament could cause parts to be brittle, generate porosity and affect the characteristics and macrostructure of FDM parts. In one of the few research articles on ULTEM 1010, the fracture toughness of FDM printed parts was evaluated with varying build orientation and raster angle 22 . Results showed that only the raster angle affected the conditional critical stress intensity factor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the effect of printing conditions and annealing on the porosity and tensile behavior of 3D‐printed polyetherimide material in Z‐direction

Ouassil

Magri

Vanaei

et al. 2022

J of Applied Polymer Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fused filament fabrication process presents drawbacks in mechanical properties observed when printing in the build direction (Z‐direction). Such anisotropic properties will affect the part's performances and have to be minimized during fabrication. This study aims to evaluate the effects of nozzle temperature, printing speed and specimen state (annealed or as‐printed) on porosity percentage and tensile properties for 3D printed polyetherimide (PEI) (ULTEM 1010) parts in Z‐direction. The results demonstrated that print speed is the most influential process parameter that should be adjusted in consideration with the other printing parameters. The specimens' state did not reveal a noticeable influence, as the amorphous nature of PEI is considered less receptive to annealing. The optimization method to achieve the best results yielded values of 360°C and 30 mm s−1 as printing conditions, followed by heat treatment. This was confirmed by porosity measurements, tensile testing, and scanning electron microscopy observations. The best performances of PEI material were 3425.5 MPa, 102 MPa, and 4.30% for Young's modulus, tensile strength, and elongation at break, respectively.

show abstract

Fracture toughness of additively manufactured ULTEM 1010

Cited by 24 publications

References 15 publications

Fused deposition modelling: Current status, methodology, applications and future prospects

Fused deposition modelling: Current status, methodology, applications and future prospects

Fused filament fabrication of nylon 6/66 copolymer: parametric study comparing full factorial and Taguchi design of experiments

Investigating the effect of printing conditions and annealing on the porosity and tensile behavior of 3D‐printed polyetherimide material in Z‐direction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About