| Literature DB >> 35683812 |
Mohd Nazri Ahmad1,2,3, Mohamad Ridzwan Ishak1,4,5, Mastura Mohammad Taha2, Faizal Mustapha1, Zulkiflle Leman6,7, Debby Dyne Anak Lukista2, Ihwan Ghazali2.
Abstract
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is capable of producing complicated geometries and a variety of thermoplastic or composite products. Thus, it is critical to carry out the relationship between the process parameters, the finished part's quality, and the part's mechanical performance. In this study, the optimum printing parameters of FDM using oil palm fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites were investigated. The layer thickness, orientation, infill density, and printing speed were selected as optimization parameters. The mechanical properties of printed specimens were examined using tensile and flexural tests. The experiments were designed using a Taguchi experimental design using a L9 orthogonal array with four factors, and three levels. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significant parameter or factor that influences the responses, including tensile strength, Young's modulus, and flexural strength. The fractured surface of printed parts was investigate using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results show the tensile strength of the printed specimens ranged from 0.95 to 35.38 MPa, the Young's modulus from 0.11 to 1.88 GPa, and the flexural strength from 2.50 to 31.98 MPa. In addition, build orientation had the largest influence on tensile strength, Young's modulus, and flexural strength. The optimum printing parameter for FDM using oil palm fiber composite was 0.4 mm layer thickness, flat (0 degree) of orientation, 50% infill density, and 10 mm/s printing speed. The results of SEM images demonstrate that the number of voids seems to be much bigger when the layer thickness is increased, and the flat orientation has a considerable influence on the bead structure becoming tougher. In a nutshell, these findings will be a valuable 3D printing dataset for other researchers who utilize this material.Entities:
Keywords: ABS; DOE; FDM; Taguchi; oil palm fiber composites
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683812 PMCID: PMC9182676 DOI: 10.3390/polym14112140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Schematic of a FDM 3D printing.
Figure 2Process flow for fabrication and optimization of oil palm fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites.
Figure 3Graph of tensile strength, Young’s modulus and flexural strength of oil palm fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites.
Factors and their levels.
| Factors | Levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| A | Thickness of Layer (mm) | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| B | Orientation on Z-axis (°) | 0 | 45 | 90 |
| C | Infill Density (%) | 100 | 50 | 0 |
| D | Printing Speed (mm/s) | 10 | 50 | 100 |
Orthogonal array design L9 (34).
| Run | Layer Thickness (mm) | Orientation (°) | Infill Density (%) | Printing Speed (mm/s) | Responses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile Strength (MPa) | Young’s Modulus (GPa) | Flexural Strength (MPa) | |||||
| 1 | 0.2 | 0 | 100 | 10 | 35.38 | 1.88 | 31.98 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 45 | 50 | 50 | 11.94 | 0.96 | 25.67 |
| 3 | 0.2 | 90 | 0 | 100 | 1.06 | 0.16 | 2.50 |
| 4 | 0.3 | 0 | 50 | 100 | 34.55 | 1.65 | 26.67 |
| 5 | 0.3 | 45 | 0 | 10 | 21.64 | 1.33 | 20.88 |
| 6 | 0.3 | 90 | 100 | 50 | 0.95 | 0.11 | 4.97 |
| 7 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 24.92 | 1.55 | 18.12 |
| 8 | 0.4 | 45 | 100 | 100 | 32.83 | 1.20 | 3.40 |
| 9 | 0.4 | 90 | 50 | 10 | 6.64 | 0.44 | 3.04 |
Figure 4Printing parameter (a) orientation (b) infill density percentage (c) layer thickness and (d) printing speed.
Dimension of ASTM D638 and ASTM D790 standard specimen.
| Dimension (mm) | ASTM D638 | ASTM D790 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall length | 165 | 130 |
| Overall width | 19 | 13 |
| Distance between grips | 115 | - |
| Gage length | 50 | - |
| Length of narrow section | 57 | - |
| Thickness | 3.2 | 3 |
| Radius of fillet | 76 | - |
| Gage width | 13 | - |
Figure 5Interaction plots of (a) tensile strength (b) Young’s modulus and (c) flexural strength.
Figure 6Normal probability plots of (a) tensile strength (b) Young’s modulus and (c) flexural strength.
ANOVA for each response.
| Response | Source | DoF | Adj SS | Adj MS | % Contribution | Remarks | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile strength | Layer thickness | 2 | 43.0 | 21.0 | 0.08 | 0.921 | 2.26 | Insignificant |
| Orientation | 2 | 1286.2 | 643.1 | 12.55 | 0.007 * | 67.67 | Significant | |
| Infill density | 2 | 83.0 | 42.0 | 0.17 | 0.851 | 4.37 | Insignificant | |
| Printing speed | 2 | 181.0 | 91.0 | 0.38 | 0.696 | 9.52 | Insignificant | |
| Error | 6 | 307.4 | 51.2 | 16.17 | ||||
| Total | 8 | 1900.6 | 100 | |||||
| Young’s modulus | Layer thickness | 2 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.995 | 0.09 | Insignificant |
| Orientation | 2 | 3.262 | 1.631 | 51.23 | 0.000 * | 48.51 | Significant | |
| Infill density | 2 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.00 | 0.996 | 0.07 | Insignificant | |
| Printing speed | 2 | 0.180 | 0.090 | 0.17 | 0.851 | 2.68 | Insignificant | |
| Error | 6 | 3.272 | 1.726 | 48.65 | ||||
| Total | 8 | 6.725 | 100 | |||||
| Flexural strength | Layer thickness | 2 | 234.0 | 117.0 | 0.80 | 0.494 | 15.68 | Insignificant |
| Orientation | 2 | 740.6 | 370.3 | 5.91 | 0.038 * | 49.62 | Significant | |
| Infill density | 2 | 47.0 | 23.0 | 0.13 | 0.880 | 3.15 | Insignificant | |
| Printing speed | 2 | 95.0 | 48.0 | 0.28 | 0.765 | 6.36 | Insignificant | |
| Error | 6 | 376.0 | 25.19 | |||||
| Total | 8 | 100 |
* Source of variance with p-value less than 0.05 is significant; DoF is degree of freedom; Adj SS is the adjusted sum of square; Adj MS is the adjusted mean square.
Figure 7Main effect plot of means for (a) tensile strength (b) Young’s modulus and (c) flexural strength.
Figure 8Main effects plot for the S/N ratios (larger the better) of (a) tensile strength (b) Young’s modulus and (c) flexural strength.
Figure 9SEM images of (a) S1 (b) S4 (c) S7 and (d) S8 specimens with fractured surfaces.