Fused filament fabrication (FFF, also known as fused deposition modeling) is the most popular 3D printing additive manufacturing technology: cheap 3D printers are largely widespread and most polymeric materials can be used. It is probably the most versatile additive manufacturing technology. The applications range from prototyping to the production of custom parts with structural capabilities: fiber reinforced plastics can also be used. However, the knowledge of the FFF materials and the design criteria for fused filament fabricated parts are scarcely known and this results in a very common skepticism in adopting this technology for technical structural components. As for the other processing technologies for plastics, included injection molding, the mechanical properties of the components strongly depend on the manufacturing parameters. As shown by some authors, since production by FFF produces a layered structure, it is possible to model the mechanical behavior by means of the classical lamination theory largely verified and known for composites. In those papers, it was shown that the equivalent elastic properties could be predicted as a function of the lamination stacking and angles. In this paper, based on experimental results obtained on symmetric balanced angle-ply laminated samples made of polyethylene terephthalate with added glycol (PETG) and polyamide (PA) subject to tensile loads, the Tsai-Hill criterion was applied to predict the strength. After identification of the strength parameters, a good correlation of the experimental with the model parameters, for all lamination angles, was obtained.
PhamDTGaultRS. A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. Int J Mach Tools Manuf1998; 38: 1257–1287.
2.
JacobsPF. Fundamentals of stereolithography. In: First European conference on rapid prototyping, Nottingham, 3D Systems, Inc., Valencia, CA July1992, pp.1–17.
3.
FrascioMMarquesEACarbasRJ, et al. Review of tailoring methods for joints with additively manufactured adherends and adhesives. Materials2020; 13(18): 3949.
4.
NajmonJCRaeisiSTovarA. Review of additive manufacturing technologies and applications in the aerospace industry. In: FroesFBoyerR (eds) Additive manufacturing for the aerospace industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp.7–31.
5.
ShirvanARNouriAWenC. Structural polymer biomaterials. In: WeiC (ed.) Structural biomaterials: properties, characteristics and selection. Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021, pp.395–439.
6.
HuangSHLiuPMokasdarA, et al. Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2013; 67: 1191–1203.
7.
CrumpSS. Fast precise, safe prototypes with FDM. In: ASME annual winter conference, ASME, Atlanta, 1991, vol. 50, pp.53–60.
8.
FicoDRizzoDCasciaroR, et al. A review of polymer-based materials for fused filament fabrication (FFF): focus on sustainability and recycled materials. Polymers2022; 14: 465.
9.
WangXJiangMZhouZ, et al. 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: a review and prospective. Compos B Eng2017; 110: 442–458.
10.
DaminaboSCGoelSGrammatikosSA, et al. Fused deposition modeling-based additive manufacturing (3D printing): techniques for polymer material systems. Mater Today Chem2020; 16: 100248. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100248
11.
MelnikovaREhrmannAFinsterbuschK. 3D printing of textile-based structures by fused deposition modelling (FDM) with different polymer materials. In: 2014 global conference on polymer and composite materials (PCM 2014), 2014, pp. 012018. IOP Publishing. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/62/1/012018.
12.
ChristJFAliheidariNAmeliA, et al. 3D printed highly elastic strain sensors of multiwalled carbon nanotube/thermoplastic polyurethane nanocomposites. Mater Des2017; 131: 394–401. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.06.011
13.
SyrlybayevDZharylkassynBSeisekulovaA, et al. Optimisation of strength properties of FDM printed parts-a critical review. Polymers2021; 13: 1587.
14.
GaoGXuFXuJ, et al. A survey of the influence of process parameters on mechanical properties of fused deposition modeling parts. Micromachines2022; 13: 553.
15.
VăleanCMarşavinaLMărghitaşM, et al. Effect of manufacturing parameters on tensile properties of FDM printed specimens. Procedia Struct Integr2020; 26: 313–320.
16.
GonabadiHYadavABullSJ. The effect of processing parameters on the mechanical characteristics of PLA produced by a 3D FFF printer. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2020; 111: 695–709.
17.
AhnSMonteroMOdellD, et al. Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J2002; 8(4): 248–257.
18.
CantrellJTRohdeSDamianiD, et al. Experimental characterization of the mechanical properties of 3D-printed ABS and polycarbonate parts. Rapid Prototyp J2017; 23(4): 811–824.
19.
SunQRizviGMBellehumeurCT, et al. Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyp J2008; 14(2): 72–80. DOI: 10.1108/13552540810862028
20.
HameedAZAravind RajSKandasamyJ, et al. 3D printing parameter optimization using Taguchi approach to examine acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA) mechanical properties. Polymers2022; 14: 3256.
21.
WuWGengPLiG, et al. Influence of layer thickness and raster angle on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PEEK and a comparative mechanical study between PEEK and ABS. Materials2015; 8: 5834–5846.
22.
CasavolaCCazzatoAMoramarcoV, et al. Orthotropic mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate theory. Mater Des2016; 90: 453–458.
23.
JonesRM. Mechanics of composite materials. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis, 1999.
24.
HalpinJC. Primer on composite materials analysis. Lancaster, PA: Taylor and Francis, 1992.
25.
SomireddyMSinghCVCzekanskiA. Analysis of the material behavior of 3D printed laminates via FFF. Exp Mech2019; 59: 871–881.
26.
RajpurohitSRDaveHKRajurkarKP. Prediction of tensile strength of fused deposition modeling (FDM) printed PLA using classic laminate theory. Eng Solid Mech2022; 10: 13–24. DOI: 10.5267/j.esm.2021.12.002
27.
NasirovAHasanovSFidanI. Prediction of mechanical properties of fused deposition modeling made parts using multiscale modeling and classical laminate theory. In: Solid freeform fabrication 2019: proceedings of the 30th annual international; solid freeform fabrication symposium – an additive manufacturing conference, The Texas University of Austin, 2019, pp.1373–1382.
28.
CroccoloDDe AgostinisMOlmiG. Experimental characterization and analytical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of fused deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30. Comput Mater Sci2013; 79: 506–518.
29.
HambaliRHSmithPRennieAEW. Determination of the effect of part orientation to the strength value on additive manufacturing FDM for end-use parts by physical testing and validation via three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Mater Eng Innov2012; 3: 269–281.
30.
TsaiSW. Strength theories of filamentary structures, in fundamental aspects of fiber reinforced plastic composites. In: Conference proceedings (eds AT Schwartz and HS Schwartz), Dayton, Ohio, 24–26 May 1966, pp.3–11. New York: Wiley lnterscience, 1968.
31.
HillR. Theory of mechanical properties of fiber-strengthened materials. III. Self-consistent model. J Mech Phys Solids1965; 13(4): 189–198.
32.
TsaiSWWuEM. A general theory of strength for anisotropic materials. J Compos Mater1971; 5(1): 58–80.
33.
ChangF-KChangK-Y. A progressive damage model for laminated composites containing stress concentrations. J Compos Mater1987; 21: 834–855.
34.
IosipescuN. New accurate procedure for single shear testing of metals. J Mater1967; 2: 537–566.
35.
BennaniBLauroF. Damage models and identification procedures for crashworthiness of automotive light materials. Lat Am J Solids Struct2006; 3: 75–87.
36.
PeirsJVerleysenPDegrieckJ. Novel technique for static and dynamic shear testing of Ti6Al4V sheet. Exp Mech2012; 52(7): 729–741.
37.
LianJSharafMArchieF, et al. A hybrid approach for modelling of plasticity and failure behaviour of advanced high-strength steel sheets. Int J Damage Mech2013; 22(2): 188–218.
38.
YinQZillmannBSuttnerS, et al. An experimental and numerical investigation of different shear test configurations for sheet metal characterization. Int J Solids Struct2014; 51(5): 1066–1074. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.12.006
39.
NizolekTJMouradHMLiuC, et al. Compact forced simple shear specimen: design improvement based on quasi-static experiments and finite element simulations. Int J Solids Struct2021; 233: 1195.
40.
RothCCMohrD. Determining the strain to fracture for simple shear for a wide range of sheet metals. Int J Mech Sci2018; 149: 224–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.10.007
