Advances in Science and Technology
Research Journal
Volume 9, No. 26, June 2015, pages 12–19 Research Article
DOI: 10.12913/22998624/2359
STRENGTH OF ABS PARTS PRODUCED BY FUSED DEPOSITION
MODELLING TECHNOLOGY – A CRITICAL ORIENTATION PROBLEM
Filip Górski1, Radosław Wichniarek1, Wiesław Kuczko1, Przemysław Zawadzki1, Paweł Buń1
Chair of Management and Production Engineering, Poznań University of Technology, Piotrowo 3, 60-965
1
put.poznan.pl;
[email protected];
[email protected]Received: 2015.04.10 ABSTRACT
Accepted: 2015.05.08 Numerous experimental studies, including experiments performed by the authors,
Published: 2015.06.01 have shown that the part orientation during layer deposition has a very strong in-
fluence on final strength of a product manufactured by additive Fused Deposition
Technology. The paper presents the results of tensile, bending and impact strength
tests performed on samples of various orientations, made out of ABS material using
FDM technology. The results of these tests allowed discovering a unique phenomenon
– with the changing orientation, not only the values of strength indexes change, but
macroscopic material behavior under load as well. The transition between a “yield
point” and “brittle” material usually happens in a certain range of orientation values,
named a critical orientation by the authors. The paper indicates supposed ranges of
critical orientation for various types of loads.
Keywords: ABS material, FDM technology, strength.
INTRODUCTION widespread build material is acrylonitrile butadi-
ene styrene (ABS), which ensures relatively good
Rapid development of the Additive Manu- strength and acceptable thermal shrinkage. It also
facturing Technologies (AMTs), also known as allows further processing of the obtained elements
layered manufacturing technologies (or, in re- (by means of machining, coating or gluing). Ma-
cent years, as 3D printing) allowed significant chines for the Fused Deposition Modelling, in
decrease of time needed for implementation of comparison with other additive manufacturing
a new product. Additive manufacturing process- technologies, have small dimensions and are easy
es allow obtaining physical, three-dimensional to maintain. They are also quiet and clean, which
shapes of nearly any complexity, directly from makes them available for use directly in design
the digital representation of a product (usually studios [1, 3]. FDM models can be recycled and
a CAD model). There is no need of using any there is not much waste, which makes the whole
specialized tooling, besides the equipment of the process ecologically friendly.
manufacturing machine. Additive manufacturing A final product manufactured using the Fused
technologies can be used for Rapid Prototyping, Deposition Modelling technology can be charac-
Rapid Manufacturing or Rapid Tooling. They are terized by some coefficients, which are influenced
invaluable when there is a need of quick manu- by many factors [4]. Unlike in most manufactur-
facturing of a physical prototype of a designed ing technologies, the values of parameters of
part [1, 2]. the additive manufacturing process can be more
One of the most frequently used AMTs for the significant than the properties of the part mate-
industrial purposes is the Fused Deposition Mod- rial – two different sets of process parameters ap-
elling technology, which can be used to obtain plied to the same geometry can result in obtain-
parts out of thermoplastic materials. The most ing two products of entirely different properties,
12
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 9 (26) 2015
e.g. strength [4, 5] or accuracy [3]. Each set of the of a wire by an extrusion head with nozzle of a
process parameters: orientation of the product in certain external dimension (in the machine used
the working chamber, layer thickness and method for the described research, nozzle diameter is 0.4
of filling of the layer contour, will make the part mm). The head can move in two axes (X and Y).
structure look different, which will result in dif- It deposes material on the model basis in a form
ferent values of coefficients such as strength, ac- of a contour and filling. After manufacturing one,
curacy or surface quality. complete layer, the model table moves in verti-
So far, many scientists have investigated the cal (Z) direction to the distance equal to the se-
influence of the manufacturing process param- lected layer thickness. Deposed material goes back
eters on mechanical properties of products made to a solid state a moment after leaving the nozzle,
using FDM technology [4, 5]. Some researchers bonding with the previously created geometry. For
focused on optimization of a selected parameter the more complex shapes, support structures are
in relation to a specific evaluation criterion, for needed to prevent deformation by gravity. The ex-
example time of the process [6], accuracy of trusion head is usually equipped with two nozzles,
shape representation [7], surface quality [8] and one for the build material, the other one for the sup-
mechanical properties [9]. The process parameter port material (usually similar types of thermoplas-
which influences values of the product properties tics are used, in some machines the soluble support
in the most significant way is spatial orientation material, such as PVA, is used for easier removal).
of the product in the working chamber during the A produced part is ready for use immediately after
manufacturing process [4, 5, 10, 11]. the support material is removed [1, 2].
Mutual relations between the FDM process The macrostructure of parts made by FDM
parameters and properties of the obtained prod- technology consists of material threads deposed
ucts are not fully discovered yet. Attempts at their in alternate directions, creating layers bound to-
experimental determination have been made [4, gether only adhesively. The manufactured ele-
5, 12], but obtaining full characteristics of these ments behave in a specific way under any given
relations is still an open research problem. load. Even a simple load (single force or torque)
The aim of the present work was to summa- applied to non-complex geometries like a rectan-
rize a set of experimental studies performed to gular beam will result in a complex stress state
obtain knowledge about an influence of the key inside the element. As such, it is very hard to pre-
parameter of the additive manufacturing with dict whether a certain part will break under the
FDM technology – orientation of the product in applied load or not.
the working chamber during layer deposition.
During numerous studies, the authors have dis-
covered that the FDM parts behave in two very
distinct ways under load – the part can be either
“brittle” or with “yield point” – it fails either via
the thread fracture or the layer disjoint [13]. The
transition between the two behaviors happens in
a certain range of orientations [14]. The prelimi-
nary research, described in the paper, was aimed
at finding out a general range of transition be-
tween material behaviors – this range was named
a critical orientation. The critical orientation
problem was defined on the basis of the tensile,
bending and impact strength tests – their results Fig. 1. FDM process scheme [2]
are presented in this paper.
As the structure is largely dependent on the
part orientation, prediction of the orientation in-
THEORETICAL INFORMATION fluence on the properties of the finished product
is of fundamental significance for evaluation of
Fused Deposition Modelling (Fig. 1) is a pro- the possibilities of FDM technology application
cess consisting in layered, linear deposition of a in small batch or piece production. Orientation in
heated thermoplastic material supplied in a form the working chamber can be intuitively defined as
13
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 9 (26) 2015
an angular difference between plane slicing the •• PN-EN ISO 527 – procedures and parameters
object into layers and a selected, base plane of of tensile tests of polymer materials,
the object (Fig. 2). Orientation may be therefore •• PN-EN ISO 178 – procedures and parameters
defined by the three rotation angles (rotation be- of bending tests of polymer materials,
tween the object and the machine coordinate sys- •• PN-EN 10045-1 – procedures and parameters
tem), where only two angles are relevant – the of Charpy impact tests of polymer materials.
third angle (around the vertical axis, perpendicu-
lar to the layer slicing plane) has no influence on The samples were manufactured in different
the manner of slicing the object into layers, so it orientations. Two orientations in the X axis were
does not affect product properties significantly. considered – 0° and 90°, named Flat and Side,
respectively. The Y axis orientations were the
main variable in the presented studies, differing
STUDY DESCRIPTION in 15° for the tensile tests, 30° for the bending
tests (with additional 45° orientation samples)
For the studies, samples made using FDM and 45° for the impact strength tests. An ID of
technology on the Dimension BST 1200 machine a given sample is composed of the name of the
were used. The samples were manufactured out X orientation and the value of the Y orientation
of ABS material supplied by the Dimension com- (e.g. Flat-0 means that orientation of the is 0° in
pany in a form of a wire wound on a spool, sealed both axes), except for samples manufactured in
hermetically in the cartridge, what ensures proper the vertical direction, that is 90° in Y axis – for
levels of humidity required for the process. these samples, the X orientation value does not
Three types of samples were manufactured affect the process of slicing into layers, so this
during the course of the study (Fig. 3). Shape of sample was simply given the “Vert” ID. A sum-
the samples was compatible with guidelines of mary of the samples produced for tests is pre-
specific standards, namely: sented in Table 1.
Fig. 2. Illustration of the orientation concept [3]
Fig. 3. Shape of samples for the experimental tests, top – tensile test, bottom – bending and Charpy impact test
14
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 9 (26) 2015
Table 1. Summary of samples for the experimental tests
Tensile sample prod. Tensile sample support Bending / impact sample Bending / impact sample
Lp. Sample ID
time [min] material [cm3] prod. time [min] support material [cm3]
1. Flat-0 22 1.96 11 0.86
2. Flat-15 109 20.68 n/a n/a
3. Flat-30 181 34.43 74 8.82
4. Flat-45 218 26.68 95 10.87
5. Flat-60 264 47.38 22 0.15
6. Flat-75 246 31.99 n/a n/a
7. Vert 222 11.69 21 0.08
8. Side-0 46 2.28 14 0.54
9. Side-15 102 10.07 n/a n/a
10. Side-30 157 17.26 70 5.67
11. Side-45 192 16.71 89 7.46
12. Side-60 247 27.8 25 0.27
13. Side-75 236 19.39 n/a n/a
The samples were manufactured using the Di- other tests always finished with the sample fail-
mension BST 1200 machine by Stratasys compa- ure and the calculated results were interpreted as
ny, out of ABS material, using solid (monolithic) the tensile strength σm or the impact strength KC.
internal filling with 45° raster, the layer thickness For the reference and comparison purposes, the
was 0.254 mm. Five samples were manufactured tensile tests and impact strength tests were also
for each sample type for the bending and the im- performed on samples of the same shape, manu-
pact strength, three samples of each type were factured out of the same ABS material, using the
manufactured for the tensile tests. For the tensile injection molding process.
and bending tests, a Zwick Roell Z020 machine
was used (with varying equipment). For the im-
pact test, a Charpy impact hammer was used. All RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
the tests were carried out according to the afore-
mentioned standards. In the bending test, the Results of all the strength tests are presented
test was conducted up to deflection equal to 1.5 in Table 2, 3 and 4 (tensile, bending and impact
of sample thickness, which is 6 mm, or until the strength, respectively). The two main groups of
sample failure. The stress, calculated on the basis characteristics are presented: strength, interpreted
of recorded forces and deflection, is interpreted as as the maximal stress recorded in a sample and
the real bending strength σfM or the conventional strain, presented as a percentage (elongation) at
(substitute) bending strength σfC, depending on the maximal force. Impact strength is presented
whether the sample failed during the tests. The separately.
Fig. 4. Experimental tests on Zwick Roell Z020 machine – tensile test and bending test
15
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 9 (26) 2015
Table 2. Results of the tensile strength tests Inside this range, a dramatic decrease can be ob-
Sample ID σm [MPa] εb [%] E [GPa] served in all ductility (plasticity) characteristics.
Flat-0 19.0 4.6 1.6
The curves were approximated and smoothed, as
Flat-15 18.1 2.0 1.6
there is not enough data from all types of mea-
surements – the variability of orientation angle
Flat-30 13.8 1.3 1.5
was 15° in tensile strength and even higher in
Flat-45 12.9 1.5 1.5
other tests. The critical orientation range was se-
Flat-60 13.7 1.2 1.6
lected by the authors in between 5° and 30° in
Flat-75 11.1 1.0 1.5
the Y orientation. The above orientation value of
Side-0 22.9 7.0 1.7 30° in Y axis, all the samples in all the tests pres-
Side-15 21.6 3.1 1.7 ent the brittle behavior (no yield point, failure via
Side-30 17.3 1.5 1.6 layer disjoint, low elongation). This behavior was
Side-45 14.9 1.2 1.6 also presented by certain, random samples of 15°
Side-60 8.7 0.8 1.5 orientation. As no samples of orientation between
Side-75 10.9 1.0 1.5 0° and 15° were tested, the 5° value was selected
Vert 11.0 1.0 1.5 arbitrarily as the beginning of the critical orienta-
Ref. (inj. molding) 30.1 27.2 1.7 tion range – in further studies it may be verified.
Figure 7 shows an example of two differ-
Where: σm – tensile strength, εb – maximal strain, E –
Young modulus. ent mechanisms of failure of the ABS samples
made using the Fused Deposition Modelling pro-
cess with various orientations. The course of the
The data is also presented in diagrams, in the strength-deformation diagram is much different
Figures 5 (strength characteristics: tensile and in both cases. In samples with the manufacturing
bending strengths) and 6 (plasticity characteris- orientation higher than a certain value, no yield
tics: elongation, impact strength). point is present – they act as made out of a brittle
In Figure 6, a critical range of orientations is material, the elongation at break is equal to elon-
shown. It is a range of orientation values, in which gation at maximal force and the measured elon-
the transition between two types of material be- gation is very small (around 1%). Regarding the
havior – with a yield point and brittle – occurs. tensile test, the Y orientation value is a value of
Table 3. Results of the bending strength tests
Sample ID dL [mm] σfM. σfC [MPa] εf [%] Broken samples [%]
Flat-0 6.0 35.1 3.5 0
Flat-30 4.3 25.2 2.5 100
Flat-45 3.5 23.9 2.1 100
Flat-60 3.8 22.0 2.2 80
Side-0 6.0 41.1 3.5 0
Side-30 5.7 34.0 3.3 20
Side-45 3.8 27.0 2.2 100
Side-60 4.0 24.5 2.3 80
Vert 2.7 18.1 1.6 100
Where: dL – maximal deflection, σfM or σfC – bending strength, εf – maximal strain.
Table 4. Results of the impact strength tests
Reference (inj. mold.) Side-0 Flat-0 Side-45 Flat-45* Vert*
Estimator
[J] KC [kJ/m ]2
[J] KC [kJ/m ]2
[J] KC [kJ/m ] 2
[J] KC [kJ/m ] 2
[J] KC [kJ/m ] [J]
2
KC [kJ/m2]
average 2.53 62.86 1.20 28.80 0.74 17.71 0.03 0.60 0 0.00 0 0.00
median 2.40 59.70 1.20 28.73 0.71 16.99 0.03 0.60 0 0.00 0 0.00
max 3.23 80.35 1.42 34.13 1.02 24.58 0.05 1.20 0 0.00 0 0.00
min 2.16 53.73 1.00 24.04 0.60 14.46 0.01 0.24 0 0.00 0 0.00
* Values lower than sensitivity of the measuring equipment.
16
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 9 (26) 2015
Fig. 5. Strength test results from the tensile and bending strength tests
Fig. 6. Plasticity characteristics from the tensile, bending and impact strength tests
the angle between the loading force and the lay- nism applies to samples subjected to the bending
er slicing plane, so it can be said that the higher tests. In the impact strength tests, the division is
the angle, the lower the strength. If this angle is clearly visible, as the results differ drastically for
higher than zero, the applied force is carried not various orientations – parts with the orientation of
only by the material threads – a certain portion 45° and higher have no impact strength at all, the
of the load is applied to layer bonds, which are recorded values were randomly oscillating around
very weak due to lack of material fusion between zero, so it was assumed that they were lower than
adjacent layers. Therefore, after a certain angle sensitivity of the measuring equipment.
is reached, the layer bond maximal strength is When comparing the values of strength and
reached faster than strength of the material itself. plasticity characteristics achieved by the samples
It causes disjoint of the layers, macroscopically made using the FDM method and the injection
observed as a brittle fracture. The same mecha- molding out of the same ABS material, it is clear
17
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 9 (26) 2015
Fig. 7. Failure mechanisms in tensile samples: a) Side-0 – with a yield point, b) Flat-30 – brittle
that the injection molded parts are much stronger process will never be as strong as the injection
and more ductile at the same time. The differ- molded parts out of the same material – even if
ence is most visible in case of the impact strength the weak interlayer bond effect is reduced to a
tests, or plasticity characteristics in general. The minimum, the volume errors still make the effec-
raw values of tensile strengths for the best FDM tive loaded area smaller than in case of the fully
samples do not exceed 80% values of the injec- monolithic part, which increases the overall stress
tion molded samples. and decreases strength.
This difference is the most visible for the
impact strength tests. FDM products have many
CONCLUSIONS material discontinuities inside, which can act as
notches during impact tests, this is why even the
The samples made out of ABS using the ad- best FDM sample achieved only 47% of the im-
ditive FDM technology do not present satisfying pact strength of the monolithic sample produced
mechanical properties. Moreover, the obtained by injection molding.
properties can be much different if only one pa- The studies presented in the paper allowed
rameter of the process – the part orientation – is a discovery of a transition between one type
changed. There are two main reasons for this – of material behavior to another, with the only
the first one is the weak bond between layers in changing factor being a method of slicing the
the FDM parts, which causes the strength char- part into layers for the additive manufacturing
acteristics to decrease, even dozens of times, in by ABS material thread deposition in the FDM
comparison to the injection molded samples. The method. The two methods of failure of the ad-
second reason is the volume error, which is al- ditively manufactured samples are by thread
ways present at the FDM samples – they are not failure or by layer disjoint. Macroscopically,
monolithic. The volume error is the main rea- they are perceived as a material with a yield
son why even the best parts made by the FDM point and a brittle material. The transition hap-
18
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 9 (26) 2015
pens in a specific range of orientation values for REFERENCES
the studied samples, this range was indicated
in Figure 6. Most likely, for a certain load (ten- 1. Chua C.K., Leong K.F., Lim C.S. Rapid prototyp-
sion or bending), more specific value or smaller ing: Principles and applications. World Scientific
Publishing, Singapore 2003, p. 420.
range of values can be determined, in which the
aforementioned transition occurs. This value or 2. Pająk E., Górski F., Wichniarek R., Dudziak A.:
Techniki przyrostowe i wirtualna rzeczywistość w
value range is defined as a critical orientation by
procesach przygotowania produkcji. Promocja 21,
the authors and it will be more deeply explored Poznań 2011.
in further studies.
3. Górski F., Wichniarek R., Kuczko W.: Influence
The future studies will consist in produc- of process parameters on dimensional accuracy of
ing more ABS samples, within the preliminar- parts manufactured using Fused Deposition Model-
ily defined critical orientation range, to find out ing technology. Advances in Science & Technology
how much it is possible to narrow it down. The Research Journal, 7(19), 2013, 27–35.
planned studies should allow for an experimen- 4. Bellini A., Guceri S., Mechanical characterization
tal answer to the question: at which orientation of parts fabricated using Fused Deposition Model-
value the layer bond is loaded up to its maximal ing. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 9, 2003, 252–264.
strength faster than the material itself. The au- 5. Ahn S.H. et al.: Anisotropic tensile failure model of
thors also plan to manufacture and test samples rapid prototyping parts – Fused Deposition Model-
of other materials and on different manufactur- ing (FDM). International Journal of Modern Physics
B, 17(8-9), 2003.
ing systems, including the low-cost 3D printers.
6. Han W.B, Jafari M.A, Seyed K. Process speeding up
The results of the presented studies should
via deposition planning in fused deposition-based
be much of a help for engineers who plan to use layered manufacturing processes. Rapid Prototyp-
additive manufacturing by the Fused Deposition ing Journal, 9, 2007, 212–218.
Modelling method for parts which can be sub- 7. Masood S.H, Rattanawong W, Iovenitti P. Part build
jected to certain loads, as it is important to know orientation based on volumetric error in fused depo-
what such a part is able to sustain and to which sition modeling. International Journal of Advanced
degree it could be comparable with parts manu- Manufacturing Technology 16, 2000, 162–168.
factured using other, better known and explored 8. Perez L.C.J. Analysis of surface roughness and di-
manufacturing technologies. In the future, a set mensional accuracy capability of fused deposition
of guidelines will be probably formulated for modelling processes. International Journal of Pro-
the additive manufacturing process engineers on duction Research, 40, 2002, 2865–2881.
how to select a proper orientation knowing the 9. Rodrigues J.F, Thomas J.P, Renaud J.E. Mechani-
purpose and probable load of the manufactured cal behavior of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene fused
deposition materials modeling. Rapid Prototyping
part. So far, it can be concluded that selection of
Journal, 9, 2003, 219–230.
the additive manufacturing process parameters is
10. Ghorpade A, Karunakaran K.P, Wiwari M.K. Selec-
a complex problem. A general guideline is to fo- tion of optimal part orientation in fused deposition
cus on the economical effectiveness coefficients modeling using swarm intelligence. Journal of En-
such as manufacturing time and costs, as the ori- geenering Manufacture 221, 2007, 1209–1219.
entations which result in shorter manufacturing 11. Thrimurthulu K, Pandey P.M, Venkata R.N. Opti-
time usually result in smaller number of layers, mum part deposition orientation in fused deposition
which often makes for better strength. Still, this modeling. International Journal of Machine Tools
is true only for simple geometries – more studies &Manufacture, 44, 2004, 585–594.
are required to enable full control over effects of 12. Bagsik A., Schöppner V., Mechanical properties
the additive manufacturing processes. of Fused Deposition Modeling parts manufactured
with ULTEM*9085. Proceedings of ANTEC 2011,
Boston 2011.
Acknowledgements 13. Górski F., Kuczko W., Wichniarek R., Impact strength
of ABS parts manufactured using Fused Deposition
Work realized partially as a research grant in Modeling technology. Archives of Mechanical Tech-
scope of statutory activities financed by Polish nology and Automation, 31(1), 2014, 3–12.
Ministry of Science for young scientists (deci- 14. Górski F., Wichniarek R., and Andrzejewski J., In-
sion no. 8710/E-362/M/2014). Part of the studies fluence of part orientation on strength of ABS mod-
financed by the Polish National Science Centre, els manufactured using Fused Deposition Modeling
agreement number: 2011/01/N/ST8/07603. technology. Polymer Processing, 9, 2012, 428–435.
19
