Improvement of quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition modeling

Gordeev, Evgeniy G.; Galushko, Alexey S.; Ananikov, Valentine P.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198370

Cited by 174 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding 3D‐EVA/EG (10 wt%), some small pores with diameters approximatively between 100 and 200 μm are observed (Figure H), whereas no pores are noticed for T‐EVA/EG (10 wt%) (Figure G). Therefore, in most cases, and as already reported in the literature, 3D plates show higher porosity compared to those obtained with the thermocompression process (Figures and and ). This porosity caused with 3D printing shaping process is explained by the thin melting polymer filaments, which are deposed successively to form a 3D model.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Thermal conductivity measurementsThermal conductivity of T-EVA/EG (10 wt%) and 3D-EVA/EG (10 wt%) was measured at room temperature by a hot disk thermal constant analyzer (Hot Disk TPS 2500S) from Thermoconcept (Bordeaux, France), which is a transient plane source technique 22. The sensor (warmth emitter) is mould in the middle of two samples (25 × 25 × 6 mm 3 ) to ensure a good contact during the experiment.The conductivity measurements were carried out by applying a power of 0.06 and 0.065 W for 10 s for T-EVA/EG (10 wt%) and 3D-EVA/EG (10 wt%), respectively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Additive manufacturing of fire‐retardant ethylene‐vinyl acetate

Geoffroy

Samyn

Jimenez

et al. 2019

Polymers for Advanced Techs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermocompression (with also extrusion and injection molding) is a classical polymer shaping manufacturing, but it does not easily allow designing sophisticated shapes without using a complex mold, on the contrary to 3D printing (or polymer additive manufacturing), which is a very flexible technique. Among all 3D printing techniques, fused deposition modeling is of high potential for product manufacturing, with the capability to compete with conventional polymer processing techniques. This is a quite low cost 3D printing technique, but the range of filaments commercially available is limited. However, in some specific 3D printing processes, no filaments are necessary. Polymers pellets feed directly the printing nozzle allowing to investigate many polymeric matrices with no commercial limitation. This is of high interest for the design of flame‐retarded materials, but literature is scarce in that field. In this paper, a comparison between thermocompression and 3D printing processes was performed on both neat ethylene‐vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer and EVA flame retarded with aluminum triHydroxyde (ATH) containing different loadings (30 or 65 wt%) and with expandable graphite (EG), ie, EVA/ATH (30 wt%), EVA/ATH (65 wt%), and EVA/EG (10 wt%), respectively. Morphological comparisons, using microscopic and electronic microprobe analyses, revealed that 3D printed plates have lower apparent density and higher porosity than thermocompressed plate. The fire‐retardant properties of thermocompressed and 3D printed plates were then evaluated using mass loss calorimeter test at 50 kW/m2. Results highlight that 3D printing can be used to produce flame‐retardant systems. This work is a pioneer study exploring the feasibility of using polymer additive manufacturing technology for designing efficient flame‐retarded materials.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Additive manufacturing of fire‐retardant ethylene‐vinyl acetate

Geoffroy

Samyn

Jimenez

et al. 2019

Polymers for Advanced Techs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The printing parameters such as extrusion temperature, speeds, etc., were adjusted for PLA to ensure that the quality of prints was acceptable. According to the literature [10,11], the extrusion temperature for PLA is usually between 205 and 220°C, with deposition speed federate around 60mm/min and 50-60°C for the printing bed. Moreover, the extrusion multiplier must be close to 1 to avoid porosity [11], which in this application could result in better surface finishing.…”

Section: Manufacturing Factors and Parameters Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the literature [10,11], the extrusion temperature for PLA is usually between 205 and 220°C, with deposition speed federate around 60mm/min and 50-60°C for the printing bed. Moreover, the extrusion multiplier must be close to 1 to avoid porosity [11], which in this application could result in better surface finishing. Starting from these recommended values, several 3D printing tests were performed to fit the final parameters until a good 3D printing quality was achieved.…”

Section: Manufacturing Factors and Parameters Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of key process parameters for hybrid manufacturing by material extrusion and CNC machining

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybrid Manufacturing combines the advantages of Additive Manufacturing (AM) and Subtractive Manufacturing on a single machine. Although previous research has provided a good background of the manufacturing parameters, the analysis is often carried out separately and there is a lack of combined knowledge. The purpose of this research is to examine the influence of the main manufacturing parameters involved in AM and subtractive processes using different variables. Particularly, the study is focused on the Material Extrusion process concerning the layer height, fill angle and fill density; as well as two factors related to machining, including step-over and pass direction. The parameters that were examined include the dimension, hardness, flatness, weight and roughness. A multifactorial Design of Experiments (DoE) was proposed with a total of 64 samples. Next, a statistical analysis was carried out to assess the influence of the different groups on the response variables. Finally, a decision table presented and facilitated the selection of parameters depending on the desired objectives, leading to a framework that was applied to a case study for validation. This decision guide could enable designers and engineers to select the best strategy for a specific application, leading to a more efficient approach for manufacturing.

show abstract

“…Three-dimensional printing is a powerful tool for recreating fine details of human anatomy (Chen et al, 2017;Gordeev, Galushko, & Ananikov, 2018). Patient-specific surgical planning and individualized surgical tools have been created using additive manufacturing techniques (Yamaguchi & Hsu, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex vivo virtual and 3D printing methods for evaluating an anatomy‐based spinal instrumentation technique for the 12th thoracic vertebra

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Three‐dimensional printing and virtual simulation both provide useful methods of patient‐specific anatomical modeling for assessing and validating surgical techniques. A combination of these two methods for evaluating the feasibility of spinal instrumentation techniques based on anatomical landmarks has not previously been investigated. Materials and Methods Nineteen anonymized CT scans of the thoracic spine in adult patients were acquired. Maximum pedicle width and height were recorded, and statistical analysis demonstrated normal distributions. The images were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files, and the T12 vertebrae were anatomically segmented. The intersection of two diagonal lines drawn from the lateral and medial borders of the T12 transverse process (TP) to the lateral border of the pars and inferolateral portion of the TP was identified on both sides of each segmented vertebra. A virtual screw was created and insertion into the pedicle on each side was simulated using the proposed landmarks. The vertebral STL files were then 3D‐printed, and 38 pedicles were instrumented according to the individual posterior landmarks used in the virtual investigation. Results There were no pedicle breaches using the proposed anatomical landmarks for insertion of T12 pedicle screws in the virtual simulation component. The technique was further validated by additive manufacturing of individual T12 vertebrae and demonstrated no breaches or model failures during live instrumentation using the proposed landmarks. Conclusions Ex vivo modeling through virtual simulation and 3D printing provides a powerful and cost‐effective means of replicating vital anatomical structures for investigation of complex surgical techniques.

show abstract

Improvement of quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition modeling

Cited by 174 publications

References 43 publications

Additive manufacturing of fire‐retardant ethylene‐vinyl acetate

Additive manufacturing of fire‐retardant ethylene‐vinyl acetate

An analysis of key process parameters for hybrid manufacturing by material extrusion and CNC machining

Ex vivo virtual and 3D printing methods for evaluating an anatomy‐based spinal instrumentation technique for the 12th thoracic vertebra

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About