See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348175288

Effect of Material on the Mechanical Properties of Additive Manufactured

Thermoplastic Parts

Article in Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati · December 2020

DOI: 10.35219/awet.2020.01

CITATIONS READS

4 420

3 authors:

Daniel Kioshi Kawasaki Cavalcanti M. D. Banea

Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca (CEFET/RJ) University of Aveiro
36 PUBLICATIONS 563 CITATIONS 163 PUBLICATIONS 6,325 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Henrique F. M. de Queiroz
Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca (CEFET/RJ)
23 PUBLICATIONS 187 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Composite repair system for wall loss and through hole defects in metallic pipelines View project

Effect of ageing on the adhesion of composite-to-metal bonded joints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. D. Banea on 05 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EFFECT OF MATERIAL ON THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURED THERMOPLASTIC PARTS
D. K. K. Cavalcanti, M. D. Banea*, H. F. M. de Queiroz
Federal Center of Technological Education in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
*Corresponding author’s e-mail address: mdbanea@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Additive manufacturing (AM) also called 3D printing, is an emerging process in the
manufacturing sector with increasing new applications in aerospace, prototyping,
medical devices and product development, among others. The resistance of the AM
part is determined by the chosen material and the printing parameters. As novel
materials and AM methods are continuously being developed, there is a need for the
development and mechanical characterization of suitable materials for 3D printing. In
this study, the influence of the material and the 3D-printing parameters on the
mechanical properties of additive manufactured thermoplastic parts was investigated.
Three different filaments that are commercially available: Polylactic acid (PLA),
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and Tritan were used. Tensile and flexural tests
were carried out, in accordance to ASTM standards, to investigate and compare the
mechanical properties of the AM parts as a function of material used. The results
showed that the type of filaments had the greatest influence on the mechanical
properties of the AM parts. The maximum strength and stiffness were obtained for the
PLA specimens. Tritan displayed the highest deformation, while the PLA manifested
the lowest deformation capacity. The mechanical properties of the printed parts also
depend on the printing parameters. The parameters used in this work are a good
compromise between the printing time and the mechanical properties.

KEY WORDS: Additive manufactured parts, PLA, ABS, Tritan, Mechanical properties.

1. INTRODUCTION printed vertically). Sood et. al. [6] showed that the
mechanical properties of the AM parts are related to the
Additive manufacturing (3D printing number of printed layers. This is due to the thermal
technology) is a process in which 3D components, cycles (heating and cooling) that will cause cumulative
with high precision and complexity, are made by residual stresses, distortion, interlayer cracking and
depositing materials in a layer-by-layer fashion, as delamination.
opposed to conventional machining or forming The nature of the AM technique limits the choice of
methods [1]. One of the most common methods for materials. The majority of the materials used for AM are
3D printing of polymeric materials is the Fused thermoplastics (i.e. Polylactic Acid (PLA) and
Filament Fabrication (FFF) or Fused Deposition Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS)). PLA is a linear
Modelling (FDM) technique [2]. aliphatic thermoplastic polyester, produced from
The resistance of the AM part is determined by renewable biodegradable materials. PLA has excellent
the chosen material and printing parameters [3], [4]. mechanical properties, thermal stability, good
Therefore, using the correct process parameters for processing capability, and low environmental impact.
the FDM technique is essential to ensure that the However, one disadvantage is that PLA is relatively
material can be printed with a good surface finish expensive as compared to other petroleum-based
and high precision. These process parameters are: polymers [7]. The ABS thermoplastic material has good
the layer thickness, raster orientation and infill mechanical properties, but it emits an unpleasant odour
density, build orientation, printing temperature and during processing [5]. However, novel materials for 3D
speed. Each parameter may have different settings printing are continuously being developed. Thus, in
for different materials, depending on their flow order to further understand the mechanical properties of
properties [5]. For example, the mechanical these AM materials and stimulate their use in new
properties of 3D printed parts seem to be strongly applications in the industry, more research work is
dependent on the printing orientation (i.e. the needed.
tensile strength of FDM printed samples printed in The main objective of this work was to characterise
the XYZ direction can be 5 times higher than those three different filament materials that are commercially

© Galati University Press, 2020 5

Date of submission/acceptance: 31.05.2020/15.12.2020 https://doi.org/10.35219/awet.2020.01
ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FASCICLE XII

available in order to understand the mechanical The raster width chosen was 0.44 mm, since this will
behaviour of 3D printed materials and to stimulate reduce internal voids (Fig. 1) occurring by raster
their use in new applications. overlapping [9]. The raster angle chosen was 0º, as it
was shown in the literature that a raster angle of 0° is the
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS optimum direction of depositions if high tensile strength
is desired. The infill chosen was 100%, since the
2.1. Materials properties of printed parts are associated to internal
voids [8]. The printing speed used was 45 mm/s as it
All the materials used in this work were was shown in the literature that this printing speed
provided by GTMax3D (Americana, SP, Brazil) yields the best results by providing increased diffusion,
under the form of filaments. The basic mechanical larger interfacial width and lower internal voids. The
properties as per supplier can be seen in table 1. slower speed also permits a longer exposure to heat,
The PLA and ABS thermoplastic materials are well increasing the diffusion between the rasters and layers
known in the industry. Tritan is an amorphous [10]. Finally, the extruder and bed temperature values
copolyester (which is a modified polyester with used were chosen based on the fact that the temperature
diacids and diols), that offers some advantages, has a significant impact in the part’s properties. A
such as: clarity, toughness, heat resistance, continuous increase in material properties was observed
chemical resistance, resulting in more robust parts as the nozzle temperature increased, while the bed
in the context of 3D printing. temperature (i.e. 120ºC) was chosen to reduce a possible
temperature gradient between the top and bottom layers
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the materials [11].
used.
Tensile Flexural
Tensile
Material strength modulus
strain (%)
(MPa) (GPa)
PLA 53 3.50 6
ABS 29 0.26 18
Tritan 43 1.55 210

2.2. Specimens Manufacture

The AM specimens were manufactured using a

Core A1v2 3D printer form GTMax3D (Americana, Fig. 1. Magnification of printed ABS core with
SP, Brazil). The printing process parameters used in indications of raster width (contrast was performed
this work are included in table 2 and were chosen using graphite powder)
based on the literature and some in-house
laboratory trials. The layer height was 0.3 mm as it Slicing was performed with Simplify3D® and all
was shown in the literature that treated the best test specimens were manufactured in a flat-edge
mechanical properties and shorter production times orientation as shown in figure 2. The number of
for FDM 3D printing [8]. contours was high enough to ensure that the raster angle
was 0° (Fig. 3). The configuration used is independent
Table 2. Printing parameters used for all specimens on the XY build orientation.

Printing Parameters Value

Nozzle diameter (mm) 0.40
Layer height (mm) 0.30
Raster width (mm) 0.44
Raster angle 0°
Infill % 100
Extruder temperature (C°) 250
Printing bed temperature (C°) 120
Printing speed (mm/s) 45
Number of contours 44
Fig. 2. 3D printing process fabrication of AM specimens

6 VOLUME 31 (YEAR XXXI) 2020

ISSN print: 1221-4639, ISSN online: 2668-6163 WELDING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Fig. 3. Preview of the specimens and their layering

after slicing (from the Simplify3D®): a) flexural; b)
tensile; c) magnification of specimen surface.

The specimen dimensions (in mm) can be seen

in figure 4. As there are no recognized standards in
the literature for the quantification of the
mechanical properties of FDM parts, the specimen
dimensions of the tensile specimens were chosen Fig. 5. Tensile test set-up
after in-house laboratory experimentation (the
configuration chosen showed consistent failure 2.4. Preliminary Parametric Study
within the specimen width of the tab or grip).
Prior to the mechanical tests, a preliminary study
was performed in order to verify if the printing
temperature chosen (i.e. 250 °C) is adequate for printing
the Tritan material as this temperature is lower than the
minimum temperature recommended by the supplier
(i.e. 260 °C). Therefore, the Tritan was also printed with
an extruder temperature of 280 °C. All other parameters
are kept the same (Table 2). Representative stress-strain
curves for the two cases studied are shown in figure 6.
From these curves the tensile properties were calculated,
and it was found that the difference between the tensile
strength of the samples printed at 250°C (i.e. 37.79 ±
1.45 MPa) and 280°C (i.e. 38.29 ± 0.43 MPa) is
insignificant. Furthermore, the failure surfaces of the
specimens after the tensile tests were examined visually.
Figure 7 shows the failure modes of both cases. It can be
seen that the specimens printed at an extruder
Fig. 4. Scheme of AM part specimens: a) tensile; b) temperature of 250 °C presented a SAT (Splitting, at
flexural. grip/tab and top) type failure (Fig. 7a), while the 280 °C
case (Fig. 7b) exhibited an AAT (Angled, at grip/tab and
2.3. Test Method Top) failure as per the ASTM D3039 standard.

The tensile and flexural tests were performed at

room temperature by means of an INSTRON®
model 5966 testing machine (Norwood,
Massachusetts, USA). The tensile tests were carried
out with a cross head speed of 2 mm/min and a load
cell of 10kN. A strain gauge extensometer was used
to record the strain, as seen in figure 5. A
50x15x6mm tab was used on either side or
extremity of the specimen in order to ensure that all
failures occurred in the proper area.
For the flexural tests a three-point bending rig
with a span of 120 mm, cross head speed of 1
mm/min and a 1 kN load cell were used, as per
ASTM D790 standard. Four specimens were tested
Fig. 6. Representative stress-strain curves for the 250°C
for each condition.
and 280°C printed Tritan specimens

VOLUME 31 (YEAR XXXI) 2020 7

ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FASCICLE XII

extruder temperature. Thus, the 250ºC temperature was

chosen for the Tritan specimens.

Fig. 7. Representative failures mode of Tritan

tensile specimens printed at: a) 250°C; b) Tritan at
280°C.

Fig. 8. Cross-section of the Tritan printed at 280°C,

where a) fragile failure area; b) mixed mode failure
area; c) the cross-section. Fig. 9. Cross-section micrograph of the Tritan printed
tensile specimens at a 280°C extruder temperature
For further clarification of the failure modes, an
optical microscope was used to produce 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
micrographs of the failure surfaces. Figure 8 shows
the macro cross section view of the Tritan tensile 3.1. Tensile Tests
specimen printed at 280ºC, as well as micrographs
of two distinct failure zones. From figure 8a, the Figure 10 shows representative tensile stress-strain
micrograph from the leftmost side of the cross- curves obtained from the tensile tests of the FDM parts
section can be seen, where a smooth surface is as a function of material. From the stress/strain curves
visible, indicative of a fragile failure, as well as the tensile data was calculated (tensile strength, Young’s
multiple crack fronts. From figure 8b a micrograph modulus and elongation at break), and the results are
of the zone opposite to the previously described can included in table 3. It can be seen that the material
be observed, and a more ductile surface is visible, properties varied significantly as a function of the
indicating a mixed mode failure. filament material. PLA had the highest tensile strength,
Figure 9 shows a more detailed view of the with improvements of approx. 40% and 28% as
cross-section micrographs. In figure 9a, inter compared to ABS and Tritan, respectively. The stiffness
filament voids are visible, as well as significant of the AM parts also varied as a function of filament
crack nucleation following these voids. material, with the highest value for the PLA and the
Furthermore, a very homogeneous and smooth lowest value for Tritan. Finally, the highest deformation
surface is visible where even the deposition was found for Tritan, while the lowest, as expected, was
layering sequence is not discernible. On the other found for PLA.
hand, in figure 9b, a detailed view of the opposite
end of the cross-section can be seen. Here, Table 3. Tensile data for the materials studied
significant fracture surface differences can be
observed. First, the layering sequence is clearly Tensile Young’s
visible, along with the inter filament voids. Strain
Material strength modulus
However, crack nucleation and propagation is (%)
(MPa) (GPa)
visible through the filaments with a ductile (wavy)/ PLA 51.88 ± 3.92 3.72 ± 0.17 2.18 ± 0.68
fragile (smooth) transition zone. Moreover, despite ABS 31.03 ± 0.11 2.18 ± 0.05 24.98 ± 0.1
these differences in failure mode, the ultimate Tritan 37.79 ± 1.45 1.38 ± 0.01 104.14 ± 30.98
failure load was not significantly affected by the

8 VOLUME 31 (YEAR XXXI) 2020

ISSN print: 1221-4639, ISSN online: 2668-6163 WELDING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Fig. 10. Representative tensile stress-strain curves: a) as a function of material; b) Magnification of the linear
part of the stress-strain curves.

Fig. 11. Representative tensile failures: a) cross-section of PLA specimen; b) cross-section of ABS specimen;
c) PLA micrograph; d) ABS micrograph; e) Tritan fibrillation failure.

VOLUME 31 (YEAR XXXI) 2020 9

ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FASCICLE XII

In figure 10, it can be seen that the behaviour of with the previously described fibrillation failure close to
the PLA material was predominantly brittle, while the top tab.
both ABS and Tritan exhibited a significantly more
ductile behaviour. For a better visualisation of the 3.2. Flexural Tests
initial slope, a magnified view of that particular
area of the stress-strain curves can be seen in figure Figure 12 shows the representative flexural stress-
10b (the differences in stiffness as a function of strain curves of the AM parts as a function of material.
material shown in table 3 can be seen more easily). From the stress/strain curves the flexural data was
If the values in table 3 are compared to the calculated and are seen in table 4.
supplier material properties (Table 1), little Similar to the tensile properties, the flexural data
variation is found in terms of tensile strength varied significantly with the printed material. The PLA
(bellow 10%) for PLA. However, a lower presented a brittle behaviour, while a more ductile
deformation was observed (approx. 28%). Similar behaviour was observed for the ABS and Tritan, as
results were found for the ABS and Tritan, and the expected. It is important to note that the flexural tests of
tensile strength exhibited little variation when both the ABS and Tritan took a significant amount of
compared to the supplier data. However, the time and were ultimately stopped due to specimen
elongation at break is higher for the ABS (by slippage.
approx. 28%), while for Tritan it is lower (by
approx. 50%), as compared to the supplier data.
These variations are probably due to the different
printing parameters used in this work.
The representative macro failure surfaces of the
tested materials can be seen in figure 11. As
specified by the ASTM D3039 standard, the PLA
and ABS both presented AGM (Angled, gage and
middle) failure, as seen in figures 11a and b,
respectively. For all specimens, the centre portion
of the printed part presented very few to no internal
voids, as seen in figure 11b. This is due to the
slicing program that created an overlap in this
portion of the sample. Magnified views of the
Fig. 12. Representative flexural stress-strain curves as a
failure surfaces taken with the aid of an optical
function of material
microscope can be seen for PLA and ABS in
figures 11c and d, respectively. In figure 11c, a very
Table 4. Flexural data
uniform failure surface is visible, with relatively
small internal printing voids and essentially no
Flexural Flexural
layering. In other words, the material is very
Material strength Modulus
cohesive, with little to no visible deposition
(MPa) (GPa)
interphase. This is due to the temperature used
PLA 60.85 ± 1.57 3.11 ± 0.11
during the printing process, which changes the void
ABS 53.32 ± 1.54 1.6 ± 0.15
geometry [12]. This improvement in inter filament
Tritan 43.53 ± 0.74 1.08 ± 0.08
bonding is promoted by a higher diffusion time.
The crack propagation was ductile in its
progression, with smooth fragile patches in between An improvement in flexural strength of approx. 30%
crack fronts. Crack nucleation points were and 22% was found when PLA was compared to Tritan
predictably close to the internal voids. and ABS, respectively. Similarly, in terms of flexural
The ABS micrograph can be seen in figure 11d, modulus, significant improvements were also observed
where significant failure surface differences can be (i.e. enhancements of approx. 50% and 66% when PLA
observed. For example, the layering sequence is was compared to ABS and Tritan). If the data obtained
clearly visible and uniform, as well as the printing here is compared to the data provided by the supplier, a
voids. In addition, while the crack propagation here significant higher flexural modulus for the ABS can be
was also ductile in progression, it was more uneven seen (approx. 84% higher). However, for the PLA and
in its topography. The macro failure mode of Tritan Tritan, lower values were obtained in the present study
can be seen in figure 11e, and a SAT (Splitting, at (approx. 12% and 47% lower than those provided by the
grip/tab and top) failure mode is observable. This supplier). The difference in values can be explained by
was described in this work as a fibre “fibrillation”, the different layer thickness and filament orientation used
as individual deposition fibres split and failed at the in this study. It was shown in the literature that the layer
interphase during loading. Also, a “necking” front thickness would directly impact void size and inter
was observed during tensile testing, where filament bonding [12], [16]. Also, the filament orientation
significant Poisson deformation was visible, ending impacts specimen rigidity [19]. This will be discussed
further in the next section 3.3.

10 VOLUME 31 (YEAR XXXI) 2020

ISSN print: 1221-4639, ISSN online: 2668-6163 WELDING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Table 5. Tensile data

Tensile Young's
Material Parameters strength modulus Ref.
(MPa) (GPa)
ABS 0.2 mm Layer heigh / ±45° Orientation / 100% Infill 29.70 1.84 [13]
ABS 0/90 Orientation / 100% Infill 27.60 1.74 [13]
ABS 0.4 mm Layer height / 0/90 Orientation / 100% Infill 28.20 1.88 [13]
0.127 mm Layer height / ±45° Orientation / 12 Contour layers /
ABS 30.66 1.80 [14]
100% Infill
ABS 0.254 mm Layer height / 12.7 mm/s Printing speed 26.50 2.14 [15]
PLA 0.30 mm Layer height / 85% Infill 37.90 0.36 [8]
PLA 0/90 Orientation/ 100% Infill 60.40 3.48 [13]
PLA 0.3 mm Layer height / ±45° Orientation / 100% Infill 48.50 3.34 [13]
PLA 0.06 mm Layer height / Flat edge / 50 mm/s Printing speed 89.10 4.19 [16]
PLA 0.24 mm Layer height / Flat edge / 50 mm/s Printing speed 72.30 3.77 [16]
PLA 0.2 mm Layer height / 0° Orientation / 3 shell 55.60 3.74 [17]
PLA 0.15 mm Layer height / ±45° Orientation / 2 Contour layers 42.28 2.80 [17]
PLA 0.2 mm Layer height / ±45° Orientation / 60 mm/s Printing speed 61.42 3.96 [18]

Table 6. Flexural data.

Flexural Flexural
Material Parameters strength modulus Ref.
(MPa) (GPa)
ABS 100% Infill / +45/-45 Orientation 42.69 0.50 [19]
ABS 0.10 mm Layer height / ±45° Orientation / 60 mm/s Printing speed 48.38 1.50 [20]
PLA 0.06 mm Layer height / Flat edge / 80 mm/s Printing speed 56.00 1.60 [16]
PLA 0.06 mm Layer height / On-edge / 80 mm/s Printing speed 65.00 1.85 [16]
PLA 0.12 mm Layer height / On-edge / 20 mm/s Printing speed 64.80 1.77 [16]
PLA 0.27 mm Layer height / 78% Infill 60.90 2.47 [8]
PLA 0.13 mm Layer height / 78% Infill 45.70 2.18 [8]

3.3 Comparative analysis The tensile strength of the PLA printed parts
found in the literature varied from approx. 37 to 89
Table 5 and 6 show a comparative analysis of the MPa [8], [13], [16]-[18]. The layer thickness of the
properties of the PLA and ABS which was performed printed parts varied between 0.06 and 0.3 mm, which
in order to evaluate the impact of the methodology can be the reason behind the superior variability in the
and the results obtained in the present work using values found for this material as compared to ABS.
relevant specialised literature [13]-[20]. It can be seen For example, Chacón et. al. [16] studied the effect of
that the values found in the literature varied for the the printing parameters (i.e. layer thickness, printing
same material. For instance, the tensile strength found orientation and speed) on the material properties of
in this study for the ABS (i.e. 31.03 ± 0.11) were PLA. It was found that a lower layer height along
close to the values found in some studies [13, 14] and with an average printing speed and flat orientation
superior to values found in [15]. The difference in were the best parameter combination for optimum
values as compared to the study of Rodríguez et al. tensile properties. The smaller layers will result in
[15] may be explained by the fact that the larger layer fewer voids, while also greatly increasing the printing
height value used in the present study promoted fewer time. For example, an increase in printing time of
internal voids and consequently improved tensile approx. 255% was reported when the 0.06 mm layer
properties. The printing speed is also a factor that height case is compared to the 0.27 mm case [16].
influences the tensile properties of the printed parts. It However, the parameters used in this work for the
was shown in the literature that a slower printing PLA achieved a good compromise between the
speed promotes a better molecular alignment and printing time (~35 min per tensile sample) and the
allows each layer to cool down before the next one is mechanical properties. Finally, the values for the
printed, and thus inter filament bonding is improved. Young's modulus found in this work for ABS and
PLA are in line with those found in the literature.

VOLUME 31 (YEAR XXXI) 2020 11

 ANNALS OF “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF GALATI FASCICLE XII

The same as the tensile properties, the flexural [3]. Popescu D., Zapciu A., Amza C., Baciu F., Marinescu R.,
FDM process parameters influence over the mechanical properties
characteristics of the material were also found to be of polymer specimens: A review, Polymer Testing 69, 2018, pp.
dependent on the printing parameters (Table 6). For 157-166.
ABS, the flexural strength found in this study had a [4]. Solomon A., Rosenthal Y., Ashkenazi D., Stern A., Structure
higher value when compared to those found in the and mechanical behavior of additive manufactured fused deposition
modeling ABS, Annals of "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati.
literature. This is mainly due to the raster orientation Fascicle XII, Welding Equipment and Technology 29, 2018, pp.
used, where the totally aligned filaments provide 47-56.
better resistance to tensile loads, consequently [5]. Ngo T. D., Kashani A., Imbalzano G., Nguyen K. T. Q., Hui
increasing the flexural strength and modulus [19]. D., Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials,
methods, applications and challenges, Composites Part B:
Regarding the PLA, little variation was found when
Engineering. vol. 143, 2018, pp. 172-196.
the flexural strength found in this work is compared to [6]. Sood A. K., Ohdar R. K., Mahapatra S. S., Parametric
the available literature. However, the flexural appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling
modulus of PLA found in this study is approx. 68% processed parts, Materials & Design, vol. 31(1), 2010, pp. 287-295.
[7]. Carrasco F., Pagès P., Gámez-Pérez J., Santana O. O.,
higher than the value found in [16]. On the other Maspoch M. L., Processing of poly(lactic acid): characterization
hand, the values obtained in this study are close to of chemical structure, thermal stability and mechanical properties,
those obtained in the flat edge configuration by Polymer Degradation and Stability, vol. 95, 2010, pp. 116-125.
Chacón et al. [16]. Therefore, it can be concluded that [8]. Camargo J. C., Machado A. R., Almeida E. C., Silva E. F.
M. S., Mechanical properties of PLA-graphene filament for FDM
the print orientation has a higher impact on the
3D printing, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
flexural properties than the layer thickness or printing Technology, vol. 103(5), 2019, pp. 2423-2443.
speed. [9]. Harris M., Potgieter J., Archer R., Arif K. M. E., Effect of
Material and Process Specific Factors on the Strength of Printed
Parts in Fused Filament Fabrication: A Review of Recent
4. CONCLUSIONS Developments, Materials, vol. 12(10), 2019, pp. 1664.
[10]. Wang L., Sanders J. E., Gardner D. J., Han Y., Effect of
In this study, the influence of the material and the 3D fused deposition modeling process parameters on the mechanical
printing parameters on the mechanical properties of properties of a filled polypropylene, Progress in Additive
Manufacturing. vol. 3(4), 2018, pp. 205-214.
additive manufactured thermoplastic parts was [11]. Aliheidari N., Tripuraneni R., Hohimer C., Christ J.,
investigated. The results show that the type of Ameli A., Nadimpalli S., The impact of nozzle and bed
filaments had the greatest influence on the mechanical temperatures on the fracture resistance of FDM printed materials,
properties of the AM parts. Among the tested Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and
Health Monitoring, vol. 10165. 2017, pp. 1016512.
materials, the one with the highest tensile strength [12]. Kuznetsov V. E., Solonin A. N., Tavitov A. G.,
was the PLA (51.88 MPa), followed by the Tritan Urzhumtsev, O. D., Vakulik A., Increasing of strength of FDM
(37.79 MPa) and finally, the ABS (31.03 MPa). In (FFF) 3D printed parts by influencing on temperature-related
terms of stiffness, PLA is the best material, followed parameters of the process, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2018, pp. 1-
32.
by ABS and Tritan which had the lowest value. [13] Tymrak B. M., Kreiger M., Pearce J. M., Mechanical
Finally, Tritan manifested the highest deformation, properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers
while PLA displayed the lowest deformation capacity. under realistic environmental conditions, Materials & Design, vol.
Regarding the flexural properties, PLA presented the 58, 2014, pp. 242-246.
[14] Schmitt M., Mehta R. M., Kim I. Y., Additive manufacturing
best properties, followed by ABS and Tritan. The infill optimization for automotive 3D-printed ABS components,
mechanical properties of the printed parts also depend Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 26, 2020, pp 89-99.
on the printing parameters. The printing parameters [15] Rodríguez J. F., Thomas J. P., Renaud J. E., Mechanical
used in this work achieved a good compromise behavior of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) fused deposition
materials. Experimental investigation, Rapid Prototyping Journal,
between the printing time and the mechanical vol. 7, 2001, pp. 148-459.
properties of the AM parts. The mechanical properties [16] Chacón J. M., Caminero M. A., García-Plaza E., Núnez P.
of the AM materials were optimised in order to J., Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition
stimulate their use in new applications in the industry. modelling: Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties
and their optimal selection, Materials & Design, vol. 124, 2017, pp.
143-157.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [17] Pei E., Lanzotti A., Grasso M., Staiano G., Martorelli M.,
The impact of process parameters on mechanical properties of
parts fabricated in PLA with an open-source 3-D printer Rapid
Authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Prototyping Journal, vol. 21, 2015, pp. 604-617.
Brazilian Research Agencies CNPq and FAPERJ. [18] Wang K., Li S., Rao Y., Wu Y., Peng Y., Yao, S., Zhang,
H., Ahzi, S., Measurements of the mechanical response of
REFERENCES unidirectional 3D-printed PLA, Materials & Design, vol. 123,
2017, pp. 154-164.
[1]. *** ASTM Standard F2792, Standard terminology for additive [19] Weng Z., Wang J., Senthil T., Wu L., Mechanical and
manufacturing technologies, vol. 2012, ASTM International, West thermal properties of ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for
Conshohocken, Pa, USA, 2012 fused deposition modeling 3D printing, Materials & Design, vol.
[2]. Cavalcanti D. K. K., Banea M. D., de Queiroz H. F. M., 102, 2016, pp. 276-283.
Mechanical characterization of bonded joints of additive [20] Wang K., Li S., Rao Y., Wu Y., Peng Y., Yao S., Zhang H.,
manufactured adherends, Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Ahzi S., Flexure behaviors of ABS-based composites containing
Galati Fascicle XII, Welding Equipment and Technology, vol. 29, carbon and Kevlar fibers by material extrusion 3D printing,
2019, pp. 27-33. Polymers, vol. 11, 2019, pp. 1-12.

12 VOLUME 31 (YEAR XXXI) 2020

View publication stats