Additive manufacturing, including fused deposition modelling, is a growing technology opening up wide perspectives in material sciences. However, the ability to produce suitable fire-retarded materials via this process has never been studied extensively. This work focuses on understanding the relation between reaction to fire and numerous additive manufacturing parameters. The goal was to determine the impact of those parameters on standard fire tests such as flame propagation test (UL94V) and cone calorimetry. The results were compared with material samples formulated via usual processes. On one hand, flame propagation results are impacted by many additive manufacturing parameters, such as the design of the part and the material flow. On the other hand, cone calorimeter results are only influenced by parameters having an impact on the sample mass.
LigonSCLiskaRStampflJ, et al. Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev2017; 117: 10212–10290.
2.
MonteroJWeberSBleckmannM, et al. Spare part production in remote locations through Additive Manufacturing enhanced by agile development principles. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE international conference on engineering, technology and innovation (ICE/ITMC), Valbonne, 17–19June2019, pp. 1–8. New York: IEEE.
3.
PérèsFNoyesD. Envisioning e-logistics developments: making spare parts in situ and on demand: state of the art and guidelines for future developments. Comput Ind2006; 57: 490–503.
4.
SolomonIJSevvelPGunasekaranJ. A review on the various processing parameters in FDM. Mater Today Proc2021; 37: 509–514.
5.
AgarwalaMKJamalabadVRLangranaNA, et al. Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition. Rapid Prototyp J1996; 2: 4–19.
6.
AhnDKweonJHKwonS, et al. Representation of surface roughness in fused deposition modeling. J Mater Process Techno2009; 209: 5593–5600.
7.
SoodAKOhdarRKMahapatraSS. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts. Mater Des2010; 31: 287–295.
8.
ThrimurthuluKPandeyPMVenkata ReddyN. Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling. Int J Mach Tool Manuf2004; 44: 585–594.
9.
SoodAKOhdarRKMahapatraSS. Improving dimensional accuracy of Fused Deposition Modelling processed part using grey Taguchi method. Mater Des2009; 30: 4243–4252.
10.
LeeCSKimSGKimHJ, et al. Measurement of anisotropic compressive strength of rapid prototyping parts. J Mater Process Technol2007; 187–188: 627–630.
AhnSMonteroMOdellD, et al. Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J2002; 8: 248–257.
13.
JiangKYGuYH. Controlling parameters for polymer melting and extrusion in FDM. Key Eng Mater2004; 259–260: 667–671.
14.
HanWJafariMASeyedK. Process speeding up via deposition planning in fused deposition-based layered manufacturing processes. Rapid Prototyp J2003; 9: 212–218.
SunQRizviGMBellehumeurCT, et al. Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyp J2008; 14: 72–80.
17.
KudelskiRCieslikJKulpaM, et al. Comparison of cost, material and time usage in FDM and SLS 3D printing methods. In: Proceedings of the 2017 XIIIth international conference on perspective technologies and methods in MEMS design (MEMSTECH), Lviv, 20–23April2017, pp. 12–14. New York: IEEE.
18.
PopescuDZapciuAAmzaC, et al. FDM process parameters influence over the mechanical properties of polymer specimens: a review. Polym Test2018; 69: 157–166.
19.
OrtizRWuHKooJH. Fire retardant polyamide 11 nanocomposites/elastomer blends for selective laser sintering: further studies. In: Proceedings of the 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1655
20.
GeoffroyLSamynFJimenezM, et al. Additive manufacturing of fire-retardant ethylene-vinyl acetate. Polym Adv Technol2019; 30: 1878–1890.
21.
GuoYChangCCCuiffoMA, et al. Engineering flame retardant biodegradable polymer nanocomposites and their application in 3D printing. Polym Degrad Stabil2017; 137: 205–215.
KolibabaTJShihCCLazarS, et al. Self-extinguishing additive manufacturing filament from a unique combination of polylactic acid and a polyelectrolyte complex. ACS Mater Lett2020; 2: 15–19.
25.
HohenwarterDFischerCBergerM. Influence of 3D-printing on the flammability properties of railway applications using polycarbonate (PC) and polylactic acid (PLA). Rail Rep2020; 64: 99–107.
26.
ZárybnickáLMácováPMachováD, et al. The effect of 3D structure design on fire behavior of polyethylene terephthalate glycol containing aluminum hypophosphite and melamine cyanurate. J Appl Polym Sci2021; 138: 50072.
27.
BrooksHWrightCHarrisS, et al. Fire resistance of additively manufactured water filled polymer parts. Addit Manuf2018; 22: 138–145.
28.
GeoffroyLSamynFJimenezM, et al. Innovative 3D printed design to conceive highly fire-retardant multi-material. Polym Degrad Stabil2019; 169: 108992.
29.
GeoffroyLDavesneABellayerS, et al. 3D printed sandwich materials filled with hydrogels for extremely low heat release rate. Polym Degrad Stab2020; 179: 109269.
30.
GeoffroyLDavesneALParentF, et al. Combining low-emissivity thin coating and 3D-printed original designs for superior fire-protective performance. ACS Omega2020; 5: 27857–27863.
31.
TymrakBKreigerMAPearceJM. Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental conditions. Mater Des2014; 58: 242–246.
32.
ShiLChewMYL. Fire behaviors of polymers under autoignition conditions in a cone calorimeter. Fire Safe J2013; 61: 243–253.
