Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug 1;11(8):1333.
doi: 10.3390/ma11081333.

The Influence of Manufacturing Parameters on the Mechanical Behaviour of PLA and ABS Pieces Manufactured by FDM: A Comparative Analysis

Adrián Rodríguez-Panes  1 , Juan Claver  2 , Ana María Camacho  3
Affiliations

The Influence of Manufacturing Parameters on the Mechanical Behaviour of PLA and ABS Pieces Manufactured by FDM: A Comparative Analysis

Adrián Rodríguez-Panes et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative study of the tensile mechanical behaviour of pieces produced using the Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) additive manufacturing technique with respect to the two types of thermoplastic material most widely used in this technique: polylactide (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). The aim of this study is to compare the effect of layer height, infill density, and layer orientation on the mechanical performance of PLA and ABS test specimens. The variables under study here are tensile yield stress, tensile strength, nominal strain at break, and modulus of elasticity. The results obtained with ABS show a lower variability than those obtained with PLA. In general, the infill percentage is the manufacturing parameter of greatest influence on the results, although the effect is more noticeable in PLA than in ABS. The test specimens manufactured using PLA perform more rigidly and they are found to have greater tensile strength than ABS. The bond between layers in PLA turns out to be extremely strong and is, therefore, highly suitable for use in additive technologies. The methodology proposed is a reference of interest in studies involving the determination of mechanical properties of polymer materials manufactured using these technologies.

Keywords: FDM; acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS); additive manufacturing; infill density; layer height; layer orientation; polylactide (PLA); tensile behaviour.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) A sketch of the material extrusion process; (b) An extruder sketch in an FDM/FFF (Fused Deposition Modelling/ Fused Filament Fabrication) process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The equipment: (a) a Prusa i3 printer; (b) a HOYTOM HM-D 100kN Universal testing machine.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The tensile tests of the filaments.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The geometrical parameters with a direct influence on the mechanical properties of pieces manufactured using FDM.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The test specimens manufactured using PLA and ABS. (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3; (d) Case 4; (e) Case 5.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The PLA test specimens tested (one of each type).
Figure 7
Figure 7
The stress–strain curves (PLA). (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3; (d) Case 4; (e) Case 5; (f) the comparison of the results with the intermediate values of each series of test specimens.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The stress–strain curves (PLA). (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3; (d) Case 4; (e) Case 5; (f) the comparison of the results with the intermediate values of each series of test specimens.
Figure 8
Figure 8
The detail of the infill and fracture surface in terms of orientation. (a) Orientation 1; (b) Orientation 2; (c) Orientation 3.
Figure 9
Figure 9
The ABS test specimens tested (one of each type).
Figure 10
Figure 10
The fracture cross-section. (a) Case 1; (b) Case 3; (c) Case 4; (d) Case 5.
Figure 11
Figure 11
The stress–strain curves (ABS). (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3; (d) Case 4; (e) Case 5; (f) The comparison of the results with the intermediate values of each series of test specimens.
Figure 12
Figure 12
The comparison of the stress–strain curves for both materials. (a) Filaments vs. Reference case, (b) Reference case vs. + layer height, (c) Reference case vs. + infill density, (d) Reference case vs. layer orientation 2, (e) Reference case vs. layer orientation 3.
Figure 12
Figure 12
The comparison of the stress–strain curves for both materials. (a) Filaments vs. Reference case, (b) Reference case vs. + layer height, (c) Reference case vs. + infill density, (d) Reference case vs. layer orientation 2, (e) Reference case vs. layer orientation 3.
Figure 13
Figure 13
The comparison of mechanical properties for PLA and ABS. (a) Modulus of elasticity; (b) Nominal strain at break; (c) Yield stress; (d) Tensile strength.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Snyder T.J., Andrews M., Weislogel M., Moeck P., Stone-Sundberg J., Birkes D., Hoffert M.P., Lindeman A., Morrill J., Fercak O., et al. 3D Systems’ Technology Overview and New Applications in Manufacturing, Engineering, Science, and Education. 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2014;1:169–176. doi: 10.1089/3dp.2014.1502. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Xiong J., Li Y., Li R., Yin Z. Influences of process parameters on surface roughness of multi-layer single-pass thin-walled parts in GMAW-based additive manufacturing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2018;252:128–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.09.020. - DOI
    1. Everton S.K., Hirsch M., Stravroulakis P., Leach R.K., Clare A.T. Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing. Mater. Des. 2016;95:431–445. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099. - DOI
    1. Tofail S.A.M., Koumoulos E.P., Bandyopadhyay A., Bose S., O’Donoghue L., Charitidis C. Additive manufacturing: Scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and opportunities. Mater. Today. 2017;21:22–37. doi: 10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.001. - DOI
    1. Ford S., Despeisse M. Additive manufacturing and sustainability: An exploratory study of the advantages and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2016;137:1573–1587. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.150. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources