Influence of post-processing treatment on the surface roughness of polyamide PA12 samples manufactured using additive methods in the context of the production of orthoses
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2024
Influence of post-processing treatment on the surface roughness of polyamide PA12 samples manufactured using additive methods in the context of the production of orthoses
Additive techniques are gaining popularity, primarily due to the emergence of new 3D printing methods, advancements in 3D printers, and the availability of innovative materials. Models produced using additive processes can undergo additional post-processing and dyeing to modify their functional and visual properties. This article presents the results of surface roughness tests conducted on samples made of polyamide PA12, using the Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and HP MultiJet Fusion (MJF) methods. Regarding the processing methods, chemical surface treatment contributed to reducing Ra and Rz parameters by about 80% for both analyzed printing methods, while mechanical surface treatment resulted in a reduction of approximately 40% for SLS samples and 30% for MJF samples. On the other hand, dyeing and applying an antibacterial coating did not significantly affect the Ra and Rz parameter values. Considering the obtained results, the recommended manufacturing method for orthosis is the MJF method, and the finishing process should include mechanical treatment followed by dyeing.
NgoTDKashaniAImbalzanoG, et al. Additive manufacturing (3d printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B Eng2018; 143: 172–196.
2.
ThompsonMKMoroniGVanekerT, et al. Design for additive manufacturing: trends, opportunities, considerations, and constraints. CIRP Ann2016; 65(2): 737–760.
3.
GaoWZhangYRamanujanD, et al. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput Aided Des2015; 69: 65–89.
4.
SalmiM.Additive manufacturing processes in medical applications. Materials2021; 14(1): 191.
5.
MelchelsFPWDomingosMANKleinTJ, et al. Additive manufacturing of tissues and organs. Prog Polym Sci2012; 37(8): 1079–1104.
6.
KairnTZahraniMCassimN, et al. Quasi-simultaneous 3d printing of muscle-, lung- and bone-equivalent media: a proof-of-concept study. Phys Eng Sci Med2020; 43(2): 701–710.
7.
FinneganRNChinVChlapP, et al. Open-source, fully-automated hybrid cardiac substructure segmentation: development and optimisation. Phys Eng Sci Med2023; 46: 377–393.
8.
BudzikGTurekP.Improved accuracy of mandible geometry reconstruction at the stage of data processing and modeling. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med2018; 41(3): 687–695.
9.
TurekPBudzikGOleksyM, et al. Polymer materials used in medicine processed by additive techniques. Polimery2020; 65(07/08): 510–515.
10.
TurekPFilipDPrzeszłowskiŁ, et al. Manufacturing polymer model of anatomical structures with increased accuracy using CAx and AM systems for planning orthopedic procedures. Polymers2022; 14(11): 2236.
11.
CioccaLMazzoniSFantiniM, et al. A CAD/CAM-prototyped anatomical condylar prosthesis connected to a custom-made bone plate to support a fibula free flap. Med Biol Eng Comput2012; 50(7): 743–749.
12.
KwonSYKimYAhnHW, et al. Computer-aided designing and manufacturing of lingual fixed orthodontic appliance using 2D/3D registration software and rapid prototyping. Int J Dent2014; 2014: 1–8.
13.
ChenLFChenFGateaS, et al. PEEK based cranial reconstruction using thermal assisted incremental sheet forming. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2022; 236(6–7): 997–1004.
14.
LiBHesarBDZhaoY, et al. Design and additive manufacturing of porous titanium scaffolds for optimum cell viability in bone tissue engineering. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2020; 095440542093756. DOI: 10.1177/0954405420937565.
15.
SunBMaQWangX, et al. Additive manufacturing in medical applications: a brief review. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2021; 1078(1): 012007.
16.
MäkitieAPaloheimoMBjörkstrandR, et al. Medical applications of rapid prototyping—from applications to classification. In: TuomiJPaloheimoKBjörkstrandRet al. (eds) Innovative Developments in design and manufacturing. CRC Press, 2009, pp.1–4.
17.
PatelPGohilP.Custom orthotics development process based on additive manufacturing. Mater Today Proc2022; 59: A52–A63.
18.
PalousekDRosickyJKoutnyD, et al. Pilot study of the wrist orthosis design process. Rapid Prototyp J2014; 20(1): 27–32.
19.
GórskiFKuczkoWWeissW, et al. Prototyping of an individualized multi-material wrist orthosis using fused deposition modelling. Adv Sci Technol Res J2019; 13(4): 39–47.
20.
GórskiFSahajNKuczkoW, et al. Risk assessment of individualized 3d printed prostheses using failure mode and effect analysis. Adv Sci Technol Res J2022; 16(4): 189–200.
21.
GórskiFWichniarekRKuczkoW, et al. Rapid manufacturing of individualized prosthetic sockets. Adv Sci Technol Res J2020; 14(1): 42–49.
22.
PatersonAMDonnisonEBibbRJ, et al. Computer-aided design to support fabrication of wrist splints using 3d printing: a feasibility study. Hand Ther2014; 19(4): 102–113.
23.
TotahDKovalenkoISaezM, et al. Manufacturing choices for ankle-foot orthoses: a multi-objective optimization. Procedia CIRP2017; 65: 145–150.
24.
Dal MasoACosmiF. 3D-printed ankle-foot orthosis: a design method. Mater Today Proc2019; 12: 252–261.
25.
SchmitzCMoriYTGambaHR, et al. Development and evaluation of a customized wrist-hand orthosis using 3d technology for a child with cerebral palsy - a case study. In: 2019 41st annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), pp. 1476–1479. New York, NY:IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/embc.2019.8857327.
26.
ShaharFSHameed SultanMTLeeSH, et al. A review on the orthotics and prosthetics and the potential of kenaf composites as alternative materials for ankle-foot orthosis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2019; 99: 169–185.
27.
GriehlWRuestemD.Nylon-12-preparation, properties, and applications. Ind Eng Chem1970; 62(3): 16–22.
28.
RameshMPanneerselvamK.Mechanical investigation and optimization of parameter selection for nylon material processed by FDM. Mater Today Proc2021; 46: 9303–9307.
29.
RosenthalWSGroganFCLiY, et al. “Sintering” models and in-situ experiments: data assimilation for microstructure prediction in SLS additive manufacturing of nylon components. MRS Adv2020; 5(29–30): 1593–1601.
30.
YelamanchiBMummareddyBSantiagoCC, et al. Mechanical and fatigue performance of pressurized vessels fabricated with multi jet fusion™ for automotive applications. Addit Manuf2021; 44: 102048.
31.
ThiedeSWieseMHerrmannC.Upscaling strategies for polymer additive manufacturing: an assessment from economic and environmental perspective for SLS, MJF and DLP. Procedia CIRP2021; 104: 653–658.
32.
ChoudhariCMPatilVD.Product development and its comparative analysis by SLA, SLS and FDM rapid prototyping processes. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2016; 149: 012009.
33.
TagliaferriVTrovalusciFGuarinoS, et al. Environmental and economic analysis of FDM, SLS and MJF additive manufacturing technologies. Materials2019; 12(24): 4161.
34.
PengXKongLFuhJYH, et al. A review of postprocessing technologies in additive manufacturing. J Mater Process Manuf Sci2021; 5(2): 38.
35.
DizonJRCGacheCCLCascolanHMS, et al. Post-processing of 3d-printed polymers. Technologies2021; 9(3): 61.
36.
TamburrinoFBaroneSPaoliA, et al. Post-processing treatments to enhance additively manufactured polymeric parts: a review. Virtual Phys Prototyp2021; 16(2): 221–254.
37.
KumbharNNMulayAV.Post processing methods used to improve surface finish of products which are manufactured by additive manufacturing technologies: a review. J Inst Eng (India) Ser C2018; 99(4): 481–487.
38.
MalekiEBagherifardSBandiniM, et al. Surface post-treatments for metal additive manufacturing: progress, challenges, and opportunities. Addit Manuf2021; 37: 101619.
39.
LinKWHuCJYangWW, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and strength test of 3d-printed foot orthoses. Appl Bionics Biomech2019; 2019: 4989534–4989538.
40.
HudakYFLiJSCullumS, et al. A novel workflow to fabricate a patient-specific 3D printed accommodative foot orthosis with personalized latticed metamaterial. Med Eng Phys2022; 104: 103802.
41.
DesmyttereGLeteneurSHajizadehM, et al. Effect of 3d printed foot orthoses stiffness and design on foot kinematics and plantar pressures in healthy people. Gait Posture2020; 81: 247–253.
42.
GórskiFWichniarekRKuczkoW, et al. Experimental studies on 3d printing of automatically designed customized wrist-hand orthoses. Materials2020; 13(18): 4091.
43.
AbramAZoreALipovžU, et al. Bacterial adhesion on prosthetic and orthotic material surfaces. Coatings2021; 11(12): 1469.
44.
AbdullahTQurbanROAbdel-WahabMS, et al. Development of nanocoated filaments for 3d fused deposition modeling of antibacterial and antioxidant materials. Polymers2022; 14(13): 2645.
45.
Chaparro-RicoBMartinelloKFucileS, et al. User-tailored orthosis design for 3d printing with PLACTIVE: a quick methodology. Crystals2021; 11(5): 561.
46.
BadiniSRegondiSLammiC, et al. Computational mechanics of form-fitting 3D-printed lattice-based wrist-hand orthosis for motor neuron disease. Biomedicines2023; 11(7): 1787.
47.
TownsendASeninNBluntL, et al. Surface texture metrology for metal additive manufacturing: a review. Precis Eng2016; 46: 34–47.
48.
TriantaphyllouAGiuscaCLMacaulayGD, et al. Surface texture measurement for additive manufacturing. Surf Topogr Metrology Properties2015; 3(2): 024002.
49.
DziubekTOleksyM.Application of ATOS II optical system in the techniques of rapid prototyping of epoxy resin-based gear models. Polimery2017; 62(01): 44–52.
50.
KoziorTMamunATrabelsiM, et al. Quality of the surface texture and mechanical properties of FDM printed samples after thermal and chemical treatment. Strojniški vestnik – Journal of Mechanical Engineering2020; 66(2): 105–113.
51.
MagdziakM.Determining the strategy of contact measurements based on results of non-contact coordinate measurements. Procedia Manuf2020; 51: 337–344.
52.
BazanATurekPPrzeszłowskiŁ.Assessment of infinite focus system measurement errors in testing the accuracy of crown and tooth body model. J Mech Sci Technol2021; 35(3): 1167–1176.
53.
BazanATurekPPrzeszłowskiŁ.Comparison of the contact and focus variation measurement methods in the process of surface topography evaluation of additively manufactured models with different geometry complexity. Surf Topogr Metrology Properties2022; 10(3): 035021.
54.
ChangSJWeiZX.Influences of the scanning strategy on surface roughness in selective laser melting. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2022; 236(14): 1853–1866.
55.
DelfsPTäowsMSchmidHJ.Optimized build orientation of additive manufactured parts for improved surface quality and build time. Addit Manuf2016; 12: 314–320.
56.
ZhangYBernardAHarikR, et al. Build orientation optimization for multi-part production in additive manufacturing. J Intell Manuf2017; 28(6): 1393–1407.
57.
ChaudhariMJogiBFPawadeRS.Comparative study of part characteristics built using additive manufacturing (FDM). Procedia Manuf2018; 20: 73–78.
58.
ZhangYBernardAGuptaRK, et al. Feature based building orientation optimization for additive manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp J2016; 22(2): 358–376.
59.
SlegersSLinzasMDrijkoningenJ, et al. Surface roughness reduction of additive manufactured products by applying a functional coating using ultrasonic spray coating. Coatings2017; 7(12): 208.
60.
SillaniFSchieggRSchmidM, et al. Powder surface roughness as proxy for bed density in powder bed fusion of polymers. Polymers2021; 14(1): 81.
61.
XuZWangYWuD, et al. The process and performance comparison of polyamide 12 manufactured by multi jet fusion and selective laser sintering. J Manuf Process2019; 47: 419–426.
62.
GuoBXuZLuoX, et al. A detailed evaluation of surface, thermal, and flammable properties of polyamide 12/glass beads composites fabricated by multi jet fusion. Virtual Phys Prototyp2021; 16: S39–S52.
63.
CaiCTeyWSChenJ, et al. Comparative study on 3d printing of polyamide 12 by selective laser sintering and multi jet fusion. J Mater Process Technol2021; 288: 116882.
Azoty Group Method of coating flexible surfaces with a layer with antimicrobial properties. Patent Pl433306.(a1), Poland, 2020.
67.
D.A. Glass. Glass or polymer sheet with a coating with an increased antimicrobial, antibacterial, biocidal effect and minimizing the deposition of microbes and dust on it, and method of obtaining a glass or polymer sheet with this coating sputtered with the magnetron method, 2022. Patent Pl435413. (a1), Poland, 2022.
ISO 527-1: 2019Plastics—determination of tensile properties.
75.
RossoSMeneghelloRBiasettoL, et al. In-depth comparison of polyamide 12 parts manufactured by multi jet fusion and selective laser sintering. Addit Manuf2020; 36: 101713.
76.
MarótiPKocsisBFerenczA, et al. Differential thermal analysis of the antibacterial effect of PLA-based materials planned for 3d printing. J Therm Anal Calorim2020; 139(1): 367–374.
77.
WörzAWiedauLCWudyK, et al. Influence of chemical postprocessing on mechanical properties of laser-sintered polyamide 12 parts. J Polym Eng2019; 39(9): 830–837.
78.
HolländerACosemansP.Surface technology for additive manufacturing. Plasma Process Polym2020; 17(1): 1900155.
79.
Agudelo-ArdilaCPPrada-BotíaGCRodriguesGPH. Orthotic prototype for upper limb printed in 3d: a efficient solution. J Phys Conf Ser2019; 1388(1): 012016.
