Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Study of the influence of 3D printing

parameters on the mechanical
properties of PLA
Shu Beng Tor

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

FDM 3D Print ing of Polymers Cont aining Nat ural Fillers: A Review of t heir Mechanical Propert ies
LORENZO MALAGUT T I

Charact erizat ion of PET G honeycomb core applied in energy absorbers as prot ect ion t o vehicle lat era…
Rit a Silva

Mat erial Anisot ropy in Addit ively Manufact ured Polymers and Polymer Composit es: A Review
nima zohdi
Study of the Influence of 3D Printing Parameters on the Mechanical Properties
of PLA
João Francisco Miranda Fernandes
Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract
This paper aims to determine the influence that some 3D printing parameters (Filling Density,
Extrusion Temperature, Raster Angle and Layer Thickness) have in some of the mechanical properties
(Ultimate Tensile Strength, Yield Tensile Strength, Modulus of Elasticity, Elongation at Break and
Toughness) of PLA, after it goes through the printing process. It is also the aim to find the scale of the
amount of water that it’s absorbed by the PLA, and find a way to reduce this absorption.
It begins with a brief introduction of all the procedures used. In terms of results, the influences of
each printing parameter are determined for each mechanical property. All of this is accomplished by
using the ANOVA statistical analysis. Regarding water absorption test, two coating materials were
tested, to find out which one promotes better protection. Finally, two different methods were used, to try
to improve the mechanical properties obtained previously.
We conclude that, individually, there is influence of all parameters in each of the mechanical
properties, but the same cannot be said about the parameter combinations. It was also found out that
for each parameter value, each mechanical property reacts differently. For the water absorption test,
one of the coatings stood out, and is clearly the best. In terms of the methods for improvement of the
properties it was also concluded that one of them was clearly more efficient.

Key-Words: FDM, PLA, Mechanical Properties, Water Absorption, Printing Parameters.

1. Introduction which is at the other end of the extruding head)

In recent years, the use of 3D printers has [1].
increased significantly, and a continuation of At the same time that the material is being
this phenomenon is foreseen. A 3D printer can extruded by the nozzle, the extrusion head
be used either in the prototyping phase of a and/or the printing bed moves in the Cartesian
product or in the final stage of production of the plane (X, Y, Z) with the aid of a mechanical
same product. The 3D printer is used for the system, building an object layer by layer [1].
manufacture of a diverse array of products,
2.2. Printing Parameters
which can range from leisure articles to medical
There are various 3D printing parameters
components.
which can be changed, to obtain different
From all the 3D printing technologies, the
mechanical properties. The following are some
one that is more accessible to the public (and
of the important ones:
therefore the most used) is the Fused
Deposition Molding (FDM). This happens not  Infill Density: a percentage of the interior
only because of the vast number of companies volume of the object, which id filled with
that develop and market this kind of printers, but material. The remaining percentage is
also because of the relative low cost of these occupied by air. The extreme cases are 0%
printers. and 100%, which is hollow object and
completely filled object, respectively;
2. Literature Review  Raster Angle: the angle in which the
2.1. FDM’s Technical Process material filaments are oriented within the
The material used in the FDM printers object;
comes in the form of filament, packed in a coil  Layer Thickness: in the printing process,
fashion. The first step is to unwind the filament, the height of the object is divided into
and using rollers driven by stepping motors, several slices. The layer Thickness is the
feed it to the extrusion head [1]. height of one of those slices;
The extrusion head is the component  Extrusion Temperature: the temperature of
responsible for the transformation of a solid the material in the moment of extrusion.
material in a malleable one. The material enters
(at one end of this component) in the solid state, 2.3. Design of Experiments
and by the heat generated by an electric When analyzing a certain process, it’s often
resistance, the material is molten. Finally it’s necessary to carry out experiments in order to
extruded through a nozzle (subcomponent determine the impact that the various inputs
have the outputs. The Design of Experiments was also selected a non-mechanical test, the
(DOE) is used to plan the experiments, in a way water absorption test, with the aim to determine
that we have all the information to execute the a good protective product that can reduce the
experiments properly, and obtain trustworthy amount of water absorbed. To check the
results [2]. physical integrity of the printed object after
There’s a need to define the three main being coated with the protective product, a
aspects of the DOE, being them the following compressive test will be conducted. For the
[2]: tensile test the specimen used was the one
shown in Figure 1. For the Charpy impact test it
 Factor: input of the experiment. Variable was used the specimen shown in Figure 2. And
that may or may not influence the final for the water absorption test it was used a 10
result of the experiment. The number of mm sided cube.
factors may be more than one;
 Level: they are the settings for each factor.
At least two levels are required;
 Response: output of the experiment.
Parameter that can be obtain from the
Figure 1 - Tensile Test Specimen
results of the experiment. The number of
responses may be more than one.
A Design Matrix is a table that has all the
combinations of levels between the different
factors. To simplify this table, a letter is
attributed to represent each factor.
2.4. Analysis of Variance
After the experiments are carried out, the Figure 2 - Charpy Impact Test
information gathered from the responses must
3.2. Selecting the 3D Printer
be processed in some way, then analyzed, and
finally it must be drawn some conclusion about The 3D printer chosen was the Ultimaker 2,
the influence that the factor has on the due its availability.
response. In order to do this, the Analyses of 3.3. Selecting the Material
Variance (ANOVA) can be used. The ANOVA is The Ultimaker 2 only prints ABS and PLA.
used as a tool to determine the relationships There are already many studies about the
between factors (and its levels) and responses influence that the 3D printing parameters have
[3]. on the mechanical properties of ABS, and very
One of the tasks of the ANOVA is to set a few in the case of PLA. So, it would be more
Null Hypothesis (H0). It states that there’s no interesting to study PLA, and that was the
relationship between two phenomena, or in this chosen one.
case between a factor and a response. If the H0 As concluded by Wittbrodt et al. (2015), the
can be rejected, then it can be concluded that color of PLA has influence on the mechanical
there’s in fact a relationship between the two
properties of the material [5]. In order to keep
phenomena [3].
In the ANOVA, a Type I Error is the incorrect the results coherent and comparable, the same
rejection of a true H0, or in another words, when color was kept throughout all the experiments,
it’s concluded that there’s a relationship and the chosen one was white (again for its
between two phenomena, but in reality there’s availability).
not. The probability of committing a Type I Error 3.4. Selecting the Factors, the Levels and
is represented by α. In some of the calculations
the Responses
done in the ANOVA, there’s a need to define a
confidence level, and it’s usually 1-α [4]. Previously it was mentioned the three
aspects of the DOE, and now those need to be
3. Preparing the Experiments specified. In terms of factors (that in this case
3.1. Selecting the Experimental Tests correspond to the 3D printing parameters), four
One of the goals of the present project is to were selected: Infill Density; Extrusion
understand the relationship between some of Temperature; Raster Angle; Layer Thickness.
the 3D printing parameters and the mechanical In Table 1 it’s presented these factors and the
behavior of a certain printed object. Given the corresponding levels.
broad variety of mechanical tests, there could In terms of responses, from the tensile test it
only be selected a few. So the chosen ones was chosen the Ultimate Tensile Stress, the
were the tensile test and Charpy impact test. It Yield Tensile Strength, the Modulus of
Elasticity, the Elongation at Break and the chosen the Absorbed Energy.
Toughness. From the Charpy impact test it was
Table 1 – Factores and its Levels

Levels
Factors 0 1 2
Infill Density (%) 20 40 60
Extrusion Temperature (ºC) 200 220
Raster Angle (º) 0/90 -45/+45
Layer Thickness (mm) 0.1 0.2

3.5. Establishing the Design Matrix  A – Infill Density;

Given the number of levels in each factor,  B – Extrusion Temperature;
there are 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 24 experiments.  C – Raster Angle;
The letters for each factor are the following:  D – Layer Thickness.
In Table 2 it’s presented the Design Matrix.
Table 2 - Design Matrix

FACTOR LEVELS FACTOR LEVELS

EXPERIMENT # A B C D EXPERIMENT # A B C D
1 0 0 0 0 13 1 1 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 14 1 1 0 1
3 0 0 1 0 15 1 1 1 0
4 0 0 1 1 16 1 1 1 1
5 0 1 0 0 17 2 0 0 0
6 0 1 0 1 18 2 0 0 1
7 0 1 1 0 19 2 0 1 0
8 0 1 1 1 20 2 0 1 1
9 1 0 0 0 21 2 1 0 0
10 1 0 0 1 22 2 1 0 1
11 1 0 1 0 23 2 1 1 0
12 1 0 1 1 24 2 1 1 1

4. Responses from the Experiments

The tensile tests were performed in a
Universal Testing Machine (the Instron 3369)
according to the ASTM D638-02a norm. The
experimental values from this test are force and
elongation of the specimen. From this two, the
stress and the strain can be calculated. And
finally from this last two we can obtain the
Ultimate Tensile Strength (σUTS), the Elongation
at Break (εf), the Modulus of Elasticity (E), the
Yield Tensile Strength (σYld) and the Toughness Figure 3 - Stress Vs. Strain Curve
(T). In Figure 3 there’s an example of a Stress
Vs. Strain curve obtain from one of the tensile
tests. In Figure 4 there’s a photo of the
specimens after the test.
The Charpy impact tests were performed on
a Zwick equipment, according to the ASTM
E23-02a norm. From this tests it was obtained
the Absorbed Energy (AE). In Table 3 there are
all the responses from the two kinds of tests.
Figure 4 – Tensile Specimen after Test
 Table 3 - Experimental Values of Every Response of the Tensile Test and the Charpy Impact Test

Experiment # σUTS [MPa] εf [%] E [GPa] σYld [MPa] T [J/cm3] AE [J/cm2]

1 20.71 3.33 1.04 17.27 0.46 0.10
2 19.09 3.36 0.94 15.71 0.53 0.13
3 20.20 4.16 0.93 15.32 0.69 0.10
4 17.67 4.40 0.72 10.96 0.74 0.10
5 22.63 3.59 1.01 16.49 0.40 0.10
6 19.79 3.69 0.93 14.14 0.47 0.10
7 21.36 4.33 0.89 12.78 0.58 0.10
8 18.20 4.40 0.78 12.73 0.61 0.10
9 24.18 4.08 0.95 14.49 0.59 0.10
10 22.35 4.61 0.97 14.97 0.67 0.13
11 19.91 4.65 1.01 16.74 0.78 0.13
12 22.24 4.49 0.91 15.18 0.89 0.10
13 24.97 3.51 1.13 19.09 0.49 0.13
14 26.14 3.59 1.19 20.07 0.53 0.17
15 25.31 4.56 1.06 17.76 0.65 0.13
16 24.32 4.46 0.96 15.94 0.74 0.13
17 26.23 4.28 1.22 19.05 0.76 0.17
18 26.55 5.01 1.23 20.61 0.81 0.20
19 29.43 4.87 1.25 21.07 0.95 0.10
20 25.22 5.51 1.00 15.99 1.19 0.10
21 30.22 4.21 1.32 21.31 0.72 0.20
22 28.67 4.45 1.20 19.42 0.77 0.17
23 29.43 4.40 1.21 21.27 0.85 0.10
24 26.71 4.77 1.09 17.85 1.07 0.10

5. Discussion of the Results from the case the number 20, with: an Infill Density of
Mechanical Tests 60%; an Extrusion Temperature of 200ºC; a
All the calculations for the ANOVA were Raster Angle of -45º/+45º; a Layer Thickness of
done by software (Minitab). It was chosen 5% 0.2 mm.
for the value of α.
It wasn’t possible to apply the ANOVA to the 5.1.1. Infill Density
Absorbed Energy, because its values weren’t It was observed an increase of every
valid, according to the ANOVA rules. Even response, with the increase of the Infill Density.
though it wasn’t possible to draw any This is an expected result, since if there’s more
conclusions from this response, it is possible to material in the specimen, the mechanical
properties will, in general, be better.
conclude somethings from the Toughness,
The main goal in studying the Infill Density
which is in some ways an equivalent parameter
was to determine if, for a certain level of this
(since both measure the energy absorbed by
factor, the responses would stop improving
the material during its deformation).
significantly, compared to a previous level. But
5.1. Factors this was not the case. In every response, there’s
The best values of the Ultimate Tensile a bigger increase when going from 40% to 60%,
Strength, the Yield Tensile Strength and the than when going from 20% to 40%.
Modulus of Elasticity correspond to the same
experiment (number 21), with: an Infill Density 5.1.2. Extrusion Temperature
of 60%; an Extrusion Temperature of 220ºC; a With the results obtain by Anoop et al.
Raster Angle of 0º/90º; a Layer Thickness of 0.1 (2012), Sun et al. (2008) and Bharath et al.
mm. (2000), it can be concluded that adhesion
In terms of the best values of the Elongation between layers improves when there’s a higher
at Break and the Toughness, they also both temperature [6] [7] [8]. But with an increase of
correspond to the same experiment, but in this temperature, the material tends to become
more fragile, as concluded by Ehrenstein et al. seen that the 0º/90º orientation was “harder” to
(2001) [9]. deform from its original state (since the amount
The facts reported in the previous paragraph of deformation is not that much), compared to
might explain why the best results of the the -45º/+45º orientation. In other words, the
Ultimate Tensile Strength, the Yield Tensile 0º/90º Raster Angle provides a stiffer structure.
Strength and the Modulus of Elasticity were This might explain the fact that the best results
observed for the higher Extrusion Temperature for the Modulus of Elasticity was observed for
(220ºC), and why the best results of the the 0º/90º Raster Angle. It’s worth noting that
stiffness mention in this paragraph is geometry
Elongation at Break and the Toughness were
stiffness, and not a material stiffness. But since
observed for the lower Extrusion Temperature
the Raster Angle is a geometry parameter, the
(200ºC). facts presented might still be valid.
5.1.3. Raster Angle This easiness in deforming the structure,
Depending on the angle of the filaments provided by the -45º/+45º Raster Angle might
relative to the direction of the force applied, the explain the fact that the best results for the
distribution of stress in the filaments will be Elongation at Break and the Toughness were
different. In some cases the filaments are in a observed for this orientation.
pure tensile stress state (0º), and in other cases In Figure 6 there’s a FEM simulation of the
they are in a mix of tensile stress and shear stress distribution for both Raster Angles. As it
stress (-45º and +45º). The optimal case is the can be observed, the higher stress is located in
one of pure tensile stress [10]. the filaments’ intersections. Figure 7 is a SEM
The Information presented before might photograph of a tensile test specimen after
explain why the best results of the Ultimate
rupture, and it can be seen that rupture occurred
Tensile Strength and the Yield Tensile Strength
on the filaments’ intersections, as predicted by
were observed for a Raster Angle of 0º/90º.
Observing Figure 5, which is a FEM the FEM simulation.
simulation of the two Rater Angles, it can be

Figure 5 - FEM Simulation of the Structure’s Deformation for Both Raster Angles: 0º/90º (left); -45º/+45º (right)

Figure 6 - FEM Simulation of the Stress Distribution for Both Raster Angles: 0º/90º (left); -45º/+45º (right)
 Figure 7 - SEM Photograph of the Rupture Zone of the Tensile Test Specimen: 0º/90º (left); -45º/+45º (right)

5.1.4. Layer Thickness The weighting of the cubes was done in

The lower the Layer Thickness, the better intervals of 30 minutes, for the first 4 hours, in
the adhesion between layers [11] This intervals of 1 hour, for the next 4 hours, and in
information might explain the fact that the best intervals of 24 hours, for the next 4 days. In
results of the Ultimate Tensile Strength, the total, the cubes spent 104 hours inside water.
Yield Tensile Strength and the Modulus of
Elasticity were observed for the lower Layer 6.2. Results from the Water Absorption
Thickness (0.1 mm). Tests
But the better the connection between layers The three properties that can be obtain from
is, the more “solid” the specimen is, and this type of test are: Weight Gain (WG); Porosity
consequently it can become less flexible. This (P); Absorption Coefficient (AC). The first two
fact might explain why the best results for the can be calculated by the following equations:
Elongation at Break and the Toughness were 𝑚𝑠𝑎𝑡 − 𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑐
observed for the higher Layer Thickness (0.2 𝐴𝑃 = × 100% (1)
𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑐
mm).
(𝑚𝑠𝑎𝑡 − 𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑐 )/𝜌𝐻2𝑂
6. Water Absorption Tests 𝑃= × 100% (2)
𝑉
It’s known that the water content in a
polymeric material can affect its mechanical Where msat is the saturated mass (the mass
properties. A way of dealing with this problem is at the end of the experiment), m dry is the dry
by coating the base material with a protective mass (the mass at the beginning of the
one (more permeable to water than the base experiment), ρH2O is the density of water and V
one). To choose the right protective material, is the volume of the cube. The Absorption
water absorption tests need to be performed. Coefficient is calculated graphically. The X axis
This tests won’t be performed for every of the graph is the square root of the immersion
experiment, but only for the ones that showed time, and the Y axis is the Weight Gain per Unit
the best results for the responses, in the tensile of Area of the cube, and this last ratio can be
tests. So, the specimens for water absorption calculated by the following equation:
tests will have the factors (printing parameters)
corresponding to the experiments number 20 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐺𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑤𝑒𝑡 − 𝑚𝑑𝑟𝑦
= (3)
and 21. 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝐴

6.1. Initial Information About the Water Where mwet is the mass of the cube in a
Absorption Tests certain instant of time, and A is the area of one
The water absorption tests were performed of the faces of the cube. The Absorption
according the ASTM D570-98 norm. There Coefficient is the initial slop of this graph. In
were selected two different protective materials, Figure 8 and Figure 9 there’s the graphs
one being a polyurethane wood selante, obtained from this experiments.
Lakeone, and the other being an acrylic It can be seen that in both cases, the
aqueous varnish, Luxens. The first was only protective of polyurethane is the best in
applied one time, and for the second, two coats preventing the absorption of water by the PLA,
were needed.
since at any given time it has the lowest weight material. It’s also confirmed that the
gain. In Table 4 it’s shown the results of the polyurethane protection is the best one, since
three properties. From the values of this table, all three of the properties show the lowest
we can conclude that there is in fact a reduction values.
in the water absorbed, when using a protective
0,003
WG/UA [g/cm2]

0,002

0,001

Without Protection
Polyurethane
Acrylic
0
0 20 40 60 80
√t [min1/2]
Figure 8 - Evolution of the Weight Gain in Function of the Squared Root of the Immersion Time for the Experiment
20

0,003
WG/UA [g/cm2]

0,002

0,001
Without Protection
Polyurethane
Acrylic
0
0 20 40 60 80
√t [min1/2]
Figure 9 - Evolution of the Weight Gain in Function of the Squared Root of the Immersion Time for the Experiment
21

Table 4 - Experimental Values of the Weight Gain, the Porosity and the Absorption Coefficient for Experiments
Number 20 and 21

Experiment #20 Experiment #21

Protection WG [%] AC [g.cm-2.min-1/2] P [%] WG [%] AC [g.cm-2.min-1/2] P [%]
None 0.308 1.157×10-4 0.277 0.326 1.369×10-4 0.315
Polyurethane 0.175 5.974×10-5 0.161 0.208 7.333×10-5 0.205
Acrylic 0.245 1.095×10-4 0.234 0.266 1.213×10-4 0.264

6.3. Analysis of the Results from the Water surface to absorb water [12]. Its also known that
Absorption Tests the rougher the surface, the better the
The wettability is the ability that a liquid has wettability is [13].
to stay in contact with a solid surface. And the The lower the Layer Thickness, the more
better the wettability, the more prone is the “ups” and “downs” there’s on the surface per
unit of length, making the surface more rough. of the polymer is responsible for the creation of
Has it can be observed in Table 4, the higher this micro-cracks [15]. An increase in micro-
values of all three properties correspond to the cracks leads to an increase of the water
experiment number 21, which has the lowest absorbed. In a way this is linked to the porosity
Layer Thickness (0.1 mm). In Figure 10 there’s of the material. In this case, the Extrusion
a SEM photograph proving that the lower Layer Temperature of 220ºC was responsible for the
Thickness provides the rougher surface. highest Porosity, and consequently the highest
The main mechanism for water penetration amount of water absorbed, since this values
in polymers is by diffusion of water molecules in correspond to the experiment number 21 (which
the micro-cracks of the polymeric chain [14]. it has the Extrusion Temperature of 220ºC).
is also known that the processing temperature

Figure 10 - SEM Photograph Evidencing the Layer Thickness: 0.1 mm (left); 0.2 mm (right)

6.4. Compression Tests Figure 11 (and there was even an improvement

After the compression tests, it was verified in the mechanical properties in the case o the
that the integrity of the PLA wasn’t experiment number 20).
compromised by the protective material, With this last information, and the one from
because the Stress Vs. Strain curves where the water absorption tests, it can be confirmed
very similar, in the cases with and without the that, in this case, the polyurethane protective
protective material, as it can be seen in material is the best.

80 80
70 70
60 60
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 Without Protection 20 Without Protection
10 Polyurethane 10 Polyurethane
Acrylic Acrylic
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Strain [%] Strain [%]

Figure 11 - Stress Vs. Strain Curves from the Compression Test for the Experiments: 20 (left); 21 (right)

7. Improving the Mechanical Properties number 20 (for best Elongation at Break and
There were used two different methods to Toughness) and 21 (for best Ultimate Tensile
improve the mechanical properties obtained Strength, Yield Tensile Strength and Modulus of
previously. Since it was already found the Elasticity).
printing parameters that led to the best The first method consisted in keeping the
mechanical properties, those were used. In levels of all factors the same, except for the Infill
other words, the parameters of experiments Density, which was raised to its maximum,
100%. In theory, more material equals better imposed on the specimen. And this gained
mechanical properties. weight is different for both methods. So, to
The second method consisted in coating the properly compare this two methods, we’re going
specimens in the polyurethane protective to compare the mechanical properties per unit
material. In theory, the polyurethane will of (extra) weight (of the specimen). In Table 5
penetrate the base material and fill in the cracks there are the values for the first method, and in
left by the printing process, solidifying the
Table 6 there are the values for the second
structure, and improving the mechanical
method.
properties.
One of the drawbacks of improving the As it can be seen, except for Elongation at
mechanical properties is the extra weight Break, the best results come from the first
method, or, by increasing the Infill Density.

Table 5 - Improvement of the Mechanical Properties per Unit of Weight for the Increasing of the Infill Density
Method

Experiment # σUTS [MPa/g] σYld [MPa/g] E [GPa/g] εf [%/g] T [(J/cm3)/g]

20 - - - 2.80 1.55
21 40.65 11.40 0.74 - -

Table 6 - Improvement of the Mechanical Properties per Unit of Weight for Coating with Polyurethane Method

Experiment # σUTS [MPa/g] σYld [MPa/g] E [GPa/g] εf [%/g] T [(J/cm3)/g]

20 - - - 9.63 1.18
21 36.05 8.66 0.49 - -

8. Comparing Results Ultimate Tensile Strength, the Yield Tensile

It’s interesting to compare the results Strength and Modulus of Elasticity show its best
obtained in this study, with the ones from other values for an Extrusion Temperature of 220ºC,
researchers. a Raster Angle of 0º/90º and a Layer Thickness
Wittbrodt et al. (2015) concluded that there’s of 0.1 mm. On the other hand, the Elongation at
an increase of the Ultimate Tensile Strength Break and the Toughness show its best results
and the Yield Tensile Strength with the increase for an Extrusion Temperature of 200ºC, a
of the Extrusion Temperature. The same was Raster Angle of -45º/+45º and a Layer
observed in the present study [5]. Thickness of 0.2 mm.
Tymrak et al. (2014) concluded that there’s Regarding the water absorption tests, the
an increase of the Ultimate Tensile Strength configuration that led to the least amount of
with the decrease of the Layer Thickness. They water absorbed corresponds to the Extrusion
also concluded that the Ultimate Tensile Temperature of 200ºC, and the Layer Thickness
Strength is higher for a Raster Angle of 0º/90º. of 0.2 mm. Nothing can be concluded about the
Both these results were observed in the present Infill Density, because this factor was kept
study [16]. constant throughout all the experiments. As for
Lanzotti et al. (2015) concluded that there’s the Raster Angle, there are no scientific
an increase of the Ultimate Tensile Strength evidence of its influence on the amount of water
and the Modulus of Elasticity with the decrease absorbed. There were used two protective
of the Layer Thickness, and there’s an increase materials to prevent the water absorption, an
of the Elongation at Break with the increase of acrylic based and a polyurethane based, and
the Layer Thickness. Both these results were the second one provided the best protection.
observed in the present study [17]. There were used two different methods to
improve the mechanical properties. One
9. Conclusion consisted in raising the Infill Density to 100%,
For the Infill Density, it was observed that the and the other consisted in coating the
increase of the responses is bigger and bigger, specimens with the protective material
the grater the value of this factor is. If there’s (polyurethane). In both methods the mechanical
availability of material and time, it’s highly properties improved, but the first method
recommended to use the highest Infill Density provided the better results (the improvement
possible. Still regarding this factor, all the was higher).
responses showed their best values for the
same value of Infill Density (60%). But the same
can´t be said about the other factors. The
Acknowledgements and Engineering Chemestry, Volume 28,
The author would like to thank all the support Issue 8, pp. 988-994, 1936.
provided by Professor Luís Reis and Professor [14] Ana Espert, Francisco Vilaplana, Sigbritt
Marco Leite, throughout this project. Karlsson, “Comparison of water
absorption in natural cellulosic fibres from
References wood and one-year crops in
polypropylene composites and its
[1] CUSTOMPART.NET:
influence on their mechanical properties”,
http://www.custompartnet.com/wu/fused- Composites Part A: Applied Science and
deposition-modeling (Acceded in Manufacturing, Volume 35, Issue 11, pp.
23/02/16).
1267-1276, 2004.
[2] Mark J. Anderson, Patrick J. Whitcomb,
[15] J. Comyn, “Polymer Permeability”,
“DOE Simplified”, Productivity Inc., 2000.
Chapman and Hall, 1985.
[3] David M. Lane, “Online Statistics
[16] B. M. Tymrak, M. Kreiger, J. M. Pearce,
Education: A Multimedia Course of “Mechanical properties of components
Study”, Rice University, 2008. fabricated with open-source 3-D printers
[4] Roxy Peck, Jay L. Devore, “Statistics:
under realistic environmental conditions”,
The Exploration and Analysis of Data”,
Materials and Design, Volume 58, pp.
Cengage Learning, 2011.
242-246, 2014.
[5] B. Wittbrodt, J. M. Pearce, ”The Effects of
[17] Antonio Lanzotti, Marzio Grasso,
PLA Color on Material Properties of 3-D Gabriele Staiano, Massimo Martorelli,
Printed Components” Additive "The impact of process parameters on
Manufacturing, Volume 8, pp. 110-116,
mechanical properties of parts fabricated
2015.
in PLA with an open-source 3-D printer",
[6] Anoop K. Sood, Raj K. Ohdar, Siba S.
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Volume 2,
Mahapatra, “Experimental investigation Issue 5, pp. 604-617, 2015.
and empirical modelling of FDM process
for compressive strength improvement”,
Journal of Advanced Research, Volume
3, Issue 1, pp. 81-90, 2012.
[7] Q. Sun, G.M. Rizvi, C.T. Bellehumeur, P.
Gu, “Effect of processing conditions on
the bonding quality of FDM polymer
filaments”, Rapid Prototyping Journal,
Volume 14, Issue 2, pp. 72-80, 2008.
[8] Bharath Vasudevarao, Dharma Prakash
Natarajan, Mark Henderson, “Sensitivity
of RP Surface Finish to Process
Parameter Variation”, Solid Freeform
Fabrication Porceedings. Conferência:
11th Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, Austin, Texas. pp. 251-258,
2000.
[9] G. W. Ehrenstein, Richard P. Theriault,
“Polymeric materials: structure,
properties, applications”, Hanser Verlag,
2001.
[10] Michael L. Berns, “Plastics Engineering
Handbook of the Plastics Industry”, 5th
Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.
[11] Anoop K. Sood, Raj K. Ohdar, Siba S.
Mahapatra, “Parametric appraisal of
mechanical property of fused deposition
modelling processed parts”, Materials
and Design, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp. 287-
295, 2010.
[12] M. E. Schrader, G.I. Loeb, “Modern
Approaches to Wettability. Theory and
Applications” Plenum Press, 1992.
[13] Robert N. Wenzel, “Resistance of Solid
Surfaces to Wetting by Water”, Industrial