| Literature DB >> 32325668 |
A P Valerga1, S R Fernandez-Vidal1, F Girot2,3, A J Gamez4.
Abstract
Nowadays, improvement of the surface finish of parts manufactured by fused deposition modelling is a well-studied topic. Chemical post-treatments have proven to be the best technique in terms of time consumption and smoothness improvement. However, these treatments modify the structure of the material and, consequently, its mechanical properties. This relationship was studied in this work. In this case, on the basis of a previous study on crystallisation, polylactic acid pieces were subjected to different post-treatments to evaluate their effects on the sample's mechanical properties, i.e., tensile strength and hardness. Models were obtained according to their percentage of crystallisation, which was related to the different treatments, as well as immersion time. Dramatic changes were obtained within a wide range of material behaviour with some treatments. Specifically, changes were obtained in the maximum stress (from 55 to 20 MPa), in elongation (from 3% to 260%), and in the hardness scale (Shore D to A).Entities:
Keywords: biodegradable polymer; crystallite; finishing processes; fused deposition modelling; hardness; manufacturing design; polylactic acid; tensile strength
Year: 2020 PMID: 32325668 PMCID: PMC7240408 DOI: 10.3390/polym12040941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Dimensions and trajectories used for monolayer samples.
Values of manufacturing parameters.
| Speed (mm/s) | Overlap (%) | Nozzle Temperature (°C) | Bed Temperature (°C) | Retraction (mm and mm/s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20 | 55 | 220 | 65 | 1.7 and 15 |
Values of percentage of crystallised samples.
| Natural | C4H8O2 | C4H8O | CH2Cl2 | CH3Cl3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ≈0 | 12.15 | 24.60 | 38.50 | 41.70 |
Figure 2Ultimate tensile strength of treated and untreated samples tested at two test speeds.
Figure 3Ultimate tensile strength of chloroform-treated samples at different immersion times.
Figure 4Voids form between fibrils, which are bundles of aligned molecular chains.
Figure 5Elongation at break of chloroform-treated samples at different immersion times.
Figure 6Typical experimental stress–strain curves of the differently treated samples.
Figure 7(a) Ultimate tensile strength and (b) elongation at break of different treated samples.
Figure 8(a) Ultimate tensile strength and (b) elongation at break as a function of the percentage of crystallisation of the samples.
Constants and correlation coefficients obtained for the traction model.
| A | B | R | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 56.50 | −0.86 | 0.98 |
| ε | 2.57 | 11.40 | 0.91 |
Figure 9Shore D hardness as a function of the crystallinity [%] obtained from each treatment.