Considerations on the Applicability of Test Methods for Mechanical Characterization of Materials Manufactured by FDM

Abstract

The lack of specific standards for characterization of materials manufactured by Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) makes the assessment of the applicability of the test methods available and the analysis of their limitations necessary; depending on the definition of the most appropriate specimens on the kind of part we want to produce or the purpose of the data we want to obtain from the tests. In this work, the Spanish standard UNE 116005:2012 and international standard ASTM D638–14:2014 have been used to characterize mechanically FDM samples with solid infill considering two build orientations. Tests performed according to the specific standard for additive manufacturing UNE 116005:2012 present a much better repeatability than the ones according to the general test standard ASTM D638–14, which makes the standard UNE more appropriate for comparison of different materials. Orientation on-edge provides higher strength to the parts obtained by FDM, which is coherent with the arrangement of the filaments in each layer for each orientation. Comparison with non-solid specimens shows that the increase of strength due to the infill is not in the same proportion to the percentage of infill. The values of strain to break for the samples with solid infill presents a much higher deformation before fracture.

Integration of Additive Manufacturing, Parametric Design, and Optimization of Parts Obtained by Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM). A Methodological Approach

“…Thus, the mechanical characterization of the material required a previous study. In that study, solid specimens were manufactured and tested, since the sizing of the bars of the filling structure considers the resistance of the material with which they are manufactured and the load applied in each area of the piece, not so much the resistance of the cells that define the lattice structure [ 9 ].…”

“…Restrictions imposed by productive processes must be taken into account when designing a product, since ignoring these limitations would lead to failure in the materialization phase. In this sense, additive manufacturing eliminates some restrictions in comparison to traditional manufacturing technologies, but they also have limitations regarding to technologies themselves and the influence of manufacturing parameters [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ], materials behavior [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] or context aspects, such as the standardization of these kind of processes and products [ 9 , 28 , 29 ]. Additive manufacturing gives great freedom to designs, and it allows the obtaining of very complex geometries that were previously impossible, especially with regard to interior cavities.…”

“…Furthermore, the increasing access of FDM technology equipment encourage its massive interest and use providing technological tools for mass customization approaches. The influence of the materials and technologies used required some previous studies focused on these aspects [ 9 , 28 ].…”

Comparison of Selected Parameters of a Planetary Gearbox with Involute and Convex–Concave Teeth Flank Profiles

“…The selection of the right production structure is the key polyethylene terephthalate (PBT), polyacetal (POM), etc. [35][36][37]. In addition, polymer composites can be used for various parts of a vehicle body or, for example, gearbox housings [38][39][40][41].…”

Optimization Methodology for Additive Manufacturing of Customized Parts by Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM). Application to a Shoe Heel

“…In any case, currently, additive manufacturing technologies also have some limitations. The standardization of some processes and products is an example [ 18 , 19 ]. Also, the materialization of the pieces itself presents some limitations, with special attention to the effects of process parameters [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], a topic widely studied in the scientific literature.…”