Proceedigs of the 15th IFAC Symposium on

Proceedigs of
Information the 15th
Control IFAC Symposium
Problems on
in Manufacturing
Proceedigs
Information
May of theOttawa,
Control
11-13, 2015. 15th IFAC
ProblemsSymposium on
in Manufacturing
Canada Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Information Control
May 11-13, 2015. Problems
Ottawa, in Manufacturing
Canada
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
ScienceDirect
IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 652–657
Assessing the Impact of Post-Processing Variables on Tensile and Compression
Assessing the Impact of Post-Processing
Characteristics for 3D Variables on Tensile and Compression
Printed Components
Assessing the Impact of Post-Processing Variables on Tensile and Compression
Characteristics for 3D Printed Components
Characteristics for 3D Printed Components
David Impens*, R. J. Urbanic**
David Impens*, R. J. Urbanic**
David Impens*, R. J. Urbanic**

*Department of Mechanical, Automotive, and Materials Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4,
*Department of Mechanical, Automotive,Canada
and Materials Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4,
(e-mail: impensd@uwindsor.ca).
*Department of Mechanical, Automotive,Canada
and Materials
(e-mail:Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4,
impensd@uwindsor.ca).
** Department of Mechanical, Automotive, and Materials Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4,
Canada
** Department of Mechanical, Automotive, (e-mail: impensd@uwindsor.ca).
and Materials e-mail:
Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4,
Canada (519-253-3000, jurbanic@uwindsor.ca).
** Department of Mechanical, Automotive, and Materials e-mail:
Canada (519-253-3000, Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4,
jurbanic@uwindsor.ca).
Canada (519-253-3000, e-mail: jurbanic@uwindsor.ca).
Abstract: Additive manufacturing (AM) is a relatively new family of manufacturing technologies which
Additive manufacturing
Abstract:components
fabricate by stacking two (AM) is a relatively
dimensional slicesnew familya of
to create manufacturing
three dimensionaltechnologies
component. whichSince
Abstract:
fabricate Additive manufacturing
components byofstacking (AM)
two is a relatively
dimensional slicesnew familya of
toThe
create manufacturing
three dimensional technologies
component. which
Since
its inception
fabricate this
components field technology
byofstacking has grown
two dimensional quickly.
slices toThe
create3D Printing (3DP) process builds brittle
its inception
components thisafield
as powder technology
is set withhas agrownweak quickly.
binder 3Da Printing
material;
three dimensional
however, (3DP)
the
component.
process
component
Since
buildsstrength
brittle
its inception thisafield
components of technology has agrown quickly. The 3D Printing (3DP) process buildsstrength
brittle
characteristicsascan powder is set with
be significantly modified weak
whenbinder material;
infiltrating the however,
componentthe component
during post processing
components
characteristics as a powder is set with a weak binder material; however, the component strength
operations. Thecan goalbeofsignificantly
this researchmodified when infiltrating
is to understand the ‘green’the component
component during post
mechanical processing
characteristics,
characteristics
operations. The can
goal beofsignificantly
this research modified
is to when infiltrating
understand the ‘green’ the component
component during post
mechanical processing
characteristics,
and the different factors that can influence the mechanical properties when engaging in post-processing
operations.
and the different The goal of this
factors thatresearch
can in is to understand
influence the ‘green’
the mechanical component
properties mechanicalpost-processing
when engaging characteristics,
operations for 3DP components a comprehensive manner. Consequently, designersinwill not only be
and the
operations different factors
forconfidently
3DP components that can influence
in amaterial the
comprehensive mechanical
manner.properties when engaging in post-processing
able to more predict the properties of theirConsequently,
3D printed part, designers
but theywillwillnot
beonly
able beto
operations
able tothe more forconfidently
3DP components predict in amaterial
the comprehensive
properties manner.
of their Consequently,
3D printed designers
part, theywill
willnot
beonly
but characteristics. able beto
tailor
able fabrication variables beforehand to build a part with the desired mechanical
tailortothe more confidently
fabrication predict
variables the material
beforehand properties
to build a part of their
with the3D printed
desired part, but characteristics.
mechanical they will be able to
© 2015,
tailor
Keywords:theIFAC (International
fabrication
Additive variables Federation
beforehand
manufacturing, of
3DAutomatic
build a Control)
toprinting, part withHosting
Material the by Elsevier
desired
properties, Post Ltd.
mechanical All rights Mechanical
reserved.
characteristics.
processing,
Keywords: Additive manufacturing, 3D printing, Material properties, Post processing, Mechanical
characteristics.
Keywords: Additive manufacturing, 3D printing, Material properties, Post processing, Mechanical
characteristics.
characteristics. 
 parameters and constraints are decomposed for the 3D
1. INTRODUCTION  parameters and constraints
1. INTRODUCTION Printing (3DP) process, as arethisdecomposed
is the process for thebeing
3D
parameters
Printing and constraints
(3DP) process, as arethisdecomposed
is the for thebeing
process 3D
1. INTRODUCTION investigated
Technological advancements are continuously being Printing (3DP) process, as this is the process being in this research.
Technological
introduced
Technological
advancements
in design are continuously
and manufacturing
advancements environments
are continuously to investigated
being
being
in this research.
investigated in this research.
introduced
sustain or growin design and
a competitive manufacturing
advantage. This environments
includes the to
introduced
sustain or growin design
a the and manufacturing
competitive advantage. (RP) environments
This includes to
the
incorporation
sustain or grow of a rapid
competitive prototyping
advantage. This or additive
includes the
incorporation
manufacturing of (AM) the family
rapid of prototyping
technologies. (RP)Using or additive
AM, a
incorporation
manufacturing of
(AM) the family
rapid of prototyping
technologies. (RP)Using or additive
AM, a
3D part
manufacturing is developed
(AM) family from layering
of layering
technologies.2D cross sections
Usingsections
AM, a
3D part is to
successively developed
create the from
final solid. Since2Dits cross
inception, this
3D part
successively is developed
to create thehas from layering
finalgrown
solid. Since 2D cross
its inception, sections
this
field of
successively technology
to create thehas finalgrown quickly
solid. Since in
its inception, multiple
this (a)
field of technology
applications as features challenging quickly
to in multiple
produce using
field of
applications technology
as features has grown quickly in multiple
using (a)
traditional processes, such aschallenging
undercuts, free to form
produce geometry,
applications
traditional as features
processes, such aschallenging
undercuts, to form
free produce using (a)
geometry,
and blind features, are manufactured “easily”. In addition to
traditional
and processes, aresuch as undercuts, free form geometry,
this, blind features,
no specialty jigs, manufactured
fixtures, clamping “easily”.
strategiesIn addition
or tooling to
and
this, blind
no features,
specialty are
jigs, manufactured
fixtures, clamping “easily”.
strategiesIn addition
or to
tooling
is required for AM processes. There are many different
this, no specialty
is requiredandformaterialsjigs, fixtures,
AM processes. clamping
There strategies
are many or tooling
processes that can be employed under different
the AM
is requiredandformaterials
processes AM processes.
that can There
be are many
employed under different
the AM
umbrella (Figure
processes (Figure
and materials 1 a). AM
that applications are illustrated in
umbrella
Figure 1 (b). It must 1 a).
be AMcan
noted that
be employed
applications
approximatelyare under 80%
the AM
illustratedof in
the
umbrella
Figure 1 (b). (Figure
It must 1 a).
be AM applications
noted that approximately are illustrated
80%tooling, in
of the
applications directly target functional components,
Figure 1
applications (b). It must be noted that approximately 80% of the
and assemblydirectly domains.target functional components, tooling,
applications
and assemblydirectly domains.target functional components, tooling,
and
With so manydomains.
assembly choices, designers and researchers now have
With
the so many
burden of choices,
choosing designers
the right andcombination
researchers now for have
their (b)
With
the so many
burden of choices,
choosing designers
the andcombination
right researchers now for have
their (b)
application. Functional components must exhibit specific
their Fig.
the burden of
application.
performance
choosingcomponents
Functional
characteristics.
the right combination
Understandingmust exhibit
the
forspecific
mechanical (b) 1. (a) AM main process families, and (b) applications
application. Functional components must exhibit specific Fig. 1. (a)report,
(Wohler’s AM main2013). process families, and (b) applications
performance characteristics.
characteristics (compressive, Understanding
tensile, bending, theetc.mechanical
and the Fig. 1. (a)report,
(Wohler’s AM main2013). process families, and (b) applications
performance characteristics. Understanding the mechanical
characteristics
associated (compressive,
deflection values) tensile,
for bending, etc. and the These
material-machine-operation (Wohler’s report,have
elements 2013).
an impact the specific decisions that the
characteristics
associated (compressive,
deflection tensile,
values) design
for bending, etc. and the
material-machine-operation
sets is essential for effective solutions. Shown in the These elements
designer will haveto
have an make
impactwiththe specific
respect decisions that thea
to developing
associated deflection values) design
for material-machine-operation the These elements haveto an make
impactwiththe specific
sets is essential
fishbone diagram for(Figure
effective 2) are thesolutions.
top level Shown
factors in that designer willrelated
have respect decisions that thea
toAndeveloping
sets is essential
fishbone diagram for(Figure
effective 2) design
are thesolutions.
top level Shown
factors the designer will have to make with respect to developing ofa
in that process plan to this AM technology. overview
affect the diagram
mechanical characteristics of top
an AM part. In Figure process
3DP plan related to this AM technology. An overview of
fishbone (Figure 2) are the level factors that the process
process is presented in the next section.
affect
3, the themore
mechanical
specific characteristics
information of an AM
related topart.the Inprocess
Figure the 3DP plan related
process to this AM
is presented in thetechnology.
next section. An overview of
affect the mechanical characteristics of
3, the more specific information related to the process an AM part. In Figure the 3DP process is presented in the next section.
3, the more specific information related to the process
Copyright
2405-8963 ©© 2015,
2015 IFAC 684Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
Copyright
Peer review©under
2015 responsibility
IFAC 684Control.
of International Federation of Automatic
Copyright © 2015 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.156 684
INCOM 2015
David Impens et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 652–657 653
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada

Mechanical Characteristics
of AM Part

Fig. 2. Fishbone diagram illustrating top level factors that can

affect the mechanical characteristics of an AM part. (a)

1.1 3D Printing Overview

3DP was developed by the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology. The parts that were made in this process were
typically for ‘proof of concept’, as the parts were generally
very brittle (Upcraft & Fletcher, 2003). This is no longer the
case as different materials and infiltrates can modify the
characteristics greatly.
The building of a 3D printed part is achieved by the layering
of powder material and bonding them together. The build bed
will have a layer of power layered on the surface by the feed (b)
roller. The printer head/binder cartridge will then dispense
the binding material on the powder at the desired location
dictated by the slice produced from the CAD representation
of the component / assembly being built. Once that slice is
complete, the build surface will then lower into the build Mechanical Properties
chamber and the feed roller will push another layer of power of 3D Printed Material
on top of the bed. The print head will only deposit binder
based on the part’s 2D geometry. There is no need for extra
support material as the base powder acts as the support (c)
structure each time a new layer is feed through. Once the
building is complete, the build chamber will then be raised Concentration
and the full printed part will then be revealed. The excess Time
build powder can be brushed off and recycled for future use.
Procedure
A process flow and a schematic view of the 3D printing
process can be seen in Figure 3.
When compared to other AM technologies, 3DP has shorter Method
building times and consumes less expensive raw materials.
These factors have made this AM solution more affordable.
Although fabricating brittle components was once considered
a disadvantage, introducing infiltrates to alter the mechanical (d)
characteristics introduces new opportunities. Unique diverse
product solutions that can be realized by utilizing various Fig. 3. (a) 3DP Process flow, (b) 3DP process schematic view
build powders, binders, and infiltrates (Z Corporation, 2005). adapted from Upcraft & Fletcher (2003), (c) Fishbone
diagram overview highlighting parameters investigated in
The goal of this research is to perform a comprehensive study
this research, and (d) Post Process decomposition.
with respect to assessing the impact of selected post-
processing variables on tensile and compression mechanical
characteristics (Impens, 2015). Presently, there is no 2. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
complete experimental or theoretical foundation for designers
to predict the mechanical characteristics of a 3D printed part, 2.1 Overview
including employing a standardized testing methodology.
Consequently, a complementary research outcome is The experiential approach undertaken for this research
establishing a robust approach for data collection, including consisted of five stages: (i) a literature review was conducted
standardizing specimen sizes, sample preparation and testing to assess the mechanical properties design information
methods for components fabricated by the 3DP process. available, as well as the experimental methodologies which

685
INCOM 2015
654 David Impens et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 652–657
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada

have been employed, (ii) exploratory testing to understand

infiltrate characteristics, and establish a streamlined testing Z
90.0°
strategy, (iii) development of a design of experiments
approach, (iv) design methods to collect the key information
in a robust manner, and (v) performing the physical tests.

2.2 Literature Review

45.0°

As shown in Figure 3, there are many factors that can

influence the mechanical properties of a 3D printed part.
Along with testing methods and specimen sizes, the
processing variants introduced by researchers were: part
orientation / build direction, infiltrates used, and binder levels
(summarized in Figure 4). Tensile testing is the most
common physical experiment investigated. Tensile tests
results were observed by Pilipovic, Raos & Sercer (2009),
Frascati (2007), Gharaie, Morsi & Massood (2013), Galeta,
Kladri & Karaka (2013) and Vaezi & Chua (2011). In
addition to tensile test, Pilipovic (2009) and Vaezi (2011)
also tests specimens with flexural tests. The authors all used a
flat dog bone shaped specimen (Figure 5), which has a
uniform thickness (thickness ≠ width) throughout and flared
out wider at the ends for better grip during tensile testing.
Most of the specimens used had a thickness of 4 mm. Frascati
(2007), used a specimen thickness of 7 mm justifying the
change in thickness was to include a larger portion of green
core material. This larger green core was assumed to give a
better representation of a printed part.
Fig. 4. Summary of processing variants explored.
The build location and build direction impacts have also been
assessed. Researchers Frascati (2007), Galeta (2013), and
Yao & Tseng (2002), have observed that location does not
significantly affect the mechanical characteristics or
Build Orientation X
Fig. 5. Illustration of part orientation and build direction.
Adapted from Gharaie (2013).
Galeta (2013) observed that thinner build layers produced
stronger parts and that was further confirmed by Vaezi &
Chua (2011). Along with thinner layer, they concluded that
stronger parts were achieved with a higher binder saturation.
Both changes increased the amount of binder used in the
specimen and therefore, would be the equivalent of having
more infiltrate.
While researchers used wide range of infiltrates, ranging
from wax to epoxy, most did not explain the method
associated with the infiltrate post processing with respect to
time, method or concentration. An exception was the double
infiltrate technique experiment conducted by Suwanprateeb
(2006). This experiment explored the results of infiltrating a
dental acrylic specimen twice with the same infiltrate.
Although his results observed little difference with the
second application of infiltration, the procedures were well
documented. The methodology developed by Suwanprateeb
(2006) formed the foundation for this research.
Table 1 summarizes key elements of this prior research. No
compression testing results have been reported, and limited
information is presented with respect to the testing
methodologies. This demonstrates the need for a robust,
detailed methodology to be developed and continued research
in this area. The experimental methodologies for this work
are described in the next sections.
Table 1. Literature review summary
(T-time , M-method, A-absorption)
Infiltrate

dimensional quality of a 3D printed part. However unlike the

Layer height
Compression
Bending

location, the build direction (Figure 5) has been shown to

Tensile

Binder

have a significant effect on the tensile test results; hence, this Author
process parameter is investigated in this work. T M A
It was observed by Frascati (2007), that the 45° build Pilipovic, Raos & Sercer (2009) X X
orientation exhibited the highest tensile strength while the Frascati (2007) X X X
90° orientation exhibited the poorest. He also noted that the Gharaie, Morsi & Massood (2013) X
orientation had this effect because the bonds between layers Galeta, Kladri & Karaka (2013) X X
are not as strong as the layers themselves. Vaezi & Chua (2011). X X X X
Mixed results were reported by Galeta (2013) as they Zañartu & Ramos (2010) X
experimented with flat specimens built with different build Suwanprateeb (2006) X X X X
layers by rotating the specimen build within the horizontal
build direction. The author noted that while the results were 2.3 Time-Infiltrate-Penetration Depth Exploratory Testing
inconclusive, the Z-direction build could have been weaker
but was not tested due to the lengthy build times. Exploratory testing was conducted on 3D printed material to
help understand the infiltration characteristics with respect to

686
INCOM 2015
David Impens et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 652–657 655
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada

materials and time. ‘Green’ (no infiltrate) 12.7 mm cubes are
dried in a conventional oven 2 hours @ 65°C. The cubes
were then submerged in the infiltrate (polyurethane,
cyanoacrylate, Epsom salt, and epoxy) for an allotted length
of time, and allowed to fully cure. The cubes are then cut in
half to measure the absorption depth of the infiltrate using
Vernier callipers. To distinguish the infiltration boundary
clearly, the samples are dipped into water containing food
colouring. It is hypothesized that the water and colour would
be absorbed only in the parts of the material that was not
infiltrated. As seen in Figure 6, the infiltration depths are well
defined measureable. Average penetration depths are
recorded, and plotted in Figure 7.
Fig. 6. Clear infiltrate boundaries.
It is noted that the Epsom salts fully infiltrated the part
quickly, and that these test samples did not show a distinct
mark with which to measure depth. However, it was observed
that the Epsom salt mixture did indeed infiltrate the full cube
as the material was wet throughout the part after infiltration.
The epoxy and polyurethane have distinct time-depth curves.
The cyanoacrylate has a rapid absorption time plateau, so the
time-depth relationship is not established. The maximum
penetration depths observed are: polyurethane at 1.85 mm,
cyanoacrylate at 1.83 mm, and epoxy at 6.35 mm.
changes in the measured effects from that of the changes
within the sample groups (Montgomery, 2009). Tensile,
compression and flexural testing is performed. The test
specimen dimensions are adapted from specimen samples
used by various ASTM standards including C1424 – 10
(Monotonic Compressive Strength of Advanced Ceramics at
Ambient Temperature) and C1273 – 05 (Tensile Strength of
Monolithic Advanced Ceramics at Ambient Temperatures),
as no standards presently exist for AM applications. The
specimens are cylindrical to limit the complexity issues with
respect to the build orientations. The diameter at the test
regions was constant for all test specimens, and has a
diameter of 12.7 mm (Figure 8). As previous research has
indicted that the build orientation impacts the tensile results,
three build orientations are explored for these tensile,
compressive, and flexural tests. They are: vertical (90°),
horizontal (0°), and 45°. This is illustrated for the
compressive samples in Figure 8.
Multiple infiltrates (including a 2 phase post process strategy)
are investigated, and multiple levels are introduced for some
infiltrates (Table 2). Each infiltrate type has its own
processing procedures, which included mixture ratios and
application times. The categories within this variable set are:
a control or non-infiltrated ‘green’ specimen, cyanoacrylate,
Epsom salt mixture, epoxy, polyurethane glue, and 2 phase.
The code representation is used throughout the results
section. The immersion duration is listed, but the mixing and
curing times are not listed due to space constraints.
Table 2. Infiltrate types and levels used for the ANOVA,
and illustrating the coding for the infiltration type

Type of Infiltrate Infiltrate

Code Comment Duration
(s)
Control C No infiltrate
Cyanoacrylate B 30
Polyurethane Glue P1 60
Polyurethane Glue P2 2 hour oven cure 60
Epoxy R1 * 30
Epoxy R2 * 60
Epoxy Rg * Not dried in Oven 120
Salt Water S1 Salt Solution 1** 5
Salt Water / Sb Salt Solution 1** 5/30
Cyanoacrylate
Salt Water S2 Salt Solution 2*** 5
Fig. 7. Infiltrate absorption test results. Salt Water / S2b Salt Solution 2*** 5/30
Cyanoacrylate
*Resin mixture 100:37 hardener by weight
This exploratory testing helped to establish the appropriate **Salt Solution 1 (210:334) salt per water by weight
application times for experimental comparative ***Salt Solution 2 (105:334) salt per water by weight
combinations. This included the application times to reach
maximum absorption depths and application times of the 2.5 Data Collection
infiltrates to match absorption depths of others.
The data collection for each sample consists of the: machine
2.4 Design of Experiments Strategy build time, the specimens build orientation, binder usage, the
post processing time for the infiltrate being investigated, the
A full factorial design of experiments (DOE) approach is response curves with respect to force vs. time/crosshead
taken to be able to conduct an analysis of variance (ANOVA) displacement, the resultant ultimate strength for that test, and
on the results. An ANOVA is a way to compare experiments the measured infiltration depths. The post processing time
and determine if the variance in the resultant is significant in includes: the mixing time, application time, and curing time.
relation to the variance of the sample group. The knowledge Each specimen was coded with a unique identifier to indicate
from this testing will provide statistic data representing the batch number, build orientation, location and infiltrate.

687
INCOM 2015
656 David Impens et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 652–657
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada

Fig. 8. CAD model of the compressive specimen and the

orientation of the compression samples in the build envelope.
Upon completing the destructive tests, trend assessments are Fig. 10. Tensile test set-up and destructed specimen.
performed with respect to the fracture region and
characteristics. The broken test specimens are then cut
orthogonal to the cylindrical surface with a small hacksaw to
measure the infiltration depth, as described in section 2.3.
This comprehensive data set can provide a basis for
downstream optimization applications.

2.6 Physical Testing

An MTS Criterion Model 43 is utilized for the testing, along

with the MTS Test Suite Elite software. The compression test
is performed by the crosshead traversing in the in the
negative Z-direction crushing the specimen between the two Infiltrate Code Run Max Force (kN) ∆X (mm)
plates. Figure 9 illustrates the compressive test setup and an Control C 37 0.105 1.15
example of a destructed specimen. R1 72 0.947 1.99
Epoxy
R2 48 1.461 1.77
Cyanoacrylate B 19 0.687 1.89
Crosshead Z-Direction of P1 22 0.575 1.16
Polyurethane
Crosshead to P2 89 0.451 1.6
Specimen test
Compression Fig. 11. Selected tensile testrun results summary.
Stationary Strength
Plate

Fig. 9. Compression test set-up and destructed specimen.

The tensile test is performed by the crosshead travelling in

the positive Z-direction while the specimen held at the ends.
Special holding fixtures were fabricated because the required
gripping force crushes the ends on the more brittle
specimens. Figure 10 illustrates the tensile test setup and
accompanied by an example of a destructed specimen.
Infiltrate Code Run Max Force (kN) ∆X (mm)
3. RESULTS
Control C 49 1.121 0.4
Selected test runs for tensile and compression, illustrated in R1 37 5.405 1.22
Epoxy
Figure 11 and 12, demonstrate the force versus the change in R2 27 6.264 1.35
crosshead distance for different infiltrate types. These curves Cyanoacrylate B 90 3.205 0.79
show both the force loads and related material deformation. P1 30 2.131 0.53
Polyurethane
The crosshead travel and load relate to the stress and strain P2 19 1.485 0.72
values, from which strain rates can be calculated.
Fig. 12. Selected compression testing, run results.
The tensile test curves indicate that the type of infiltrate
greatly impacts the shape of the strain and strain rate curves, After a short transition zone, the compression curves increase
and maximum force loads. There are various linear regions at a steady rate; it is interesting that they all seem to have a
and transition zones in the tensile curve results, indicating linear region with a similar slope prior to failure, independent
non-linear material –system mechanical characteristics.

688
INCOM 2015
David Impens et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 652–657 657
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
of the infiltrate conditions. The build orientation impacts both
the tensile and compressive maximum strength, with or
without the infiltrate (Figures 13 and 14). The specimens
infiltrated with epoxy are stronger overall, and the specimens
with a longer application time are the strongest. This is true
for both the tensile and compressive tests. For the tensile test
results, the strongest build orientation was the 45° for the
epoxy. For all other conditions, the 0° orientation has the
higher recorded strength, and the least optimal orientation
occurred at 90°. It is noted that the epoxy performed
exceptionally well in the compression test at the 90°
orientation while the other infiltrates recorded their highest
strength with the 0° orientation. The least optimal orientation
for compression is the 45° build for all infiltrates.
a)
b)
Fig. 13. a) Maximum tensile strength per orientation -
infiltrate and b) Tensile strength performance improvements.
a)
b)
Fig. 14. a) Maximum compression strength per orientation -
infiltrate and b) strength performance improvements.
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This research was performed to assess the impact of post-
processing variables on tensile and compression
characteristics. The experimental testing has illustrated the
689
non-linear mechanical characteristics exhibited by the 3DP
process for various post processing scenarios. The
experimental methodology is depicted in detail in order to
serve as a foundation for establishing standard testing
procedures. Further testing is required for material-machine-
post process sets to calibrate simulations due to the non-linear
response characteristics. This research will be used to design
an optimization model for designers incorporating time,
material and strength conditions. Future data collection will
include bending tests, as well as conducting impact and
fatigue tests to determine these mechanical characteristics.
REFERENCES
Frascati, J. (2007). Effects of Position, Orientation, and
Infiltrating material on three dimensional printed models.
University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida. Retrieved
from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/CFE0001920
Galeta T., Kladaric I., Karakasic M., (2013). Influence of
Processing Factors on the Tensile Strength of 3D-Printed
Models. Materiali in tehnologije / Materials and
technology 47 (2013) 6, 781–788. ISSN 1580-2949
Gharaie, S. H., Morsi, Y., & Masood, S. H. (2013). Tensile
Properties of Processed 3D Printer ZP150 Powder
Material. Advanced Materials Research, 699, 813–816.
Impens, D., (2015). An Experimental Approach to Assess the
Impact of Post Processing Variables on the Mechanical
Characteristics of 3D Printed (Powder Binding Process)
Parts. MASc. Thesis, University of Windsor.
Montgomery, Douglas C. (2009). Design and Analysis of
Experiments, 7th Edition, Published by: J.Willey & Sons
Pilipović, A., Raos, P., & Šercer, M. (2009). Experimental
analysis of properties of materials for rapid prototyping.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 40(1-2), 105–115.
Suwanprateeb, J. (2006). Improvement in mechanical
properties of three-dimensional printing parts made from
natural polymers reinforced by acrylate resin for
biomedical applications: a double infiltration approach.
Polymer International, 55(1), 57–62.
Upcraft, S., & Fletcher, R. (2003). The rapid prototyping
technologies. Assembly Automation, 23(4), 318–330.
Vaezi, M., & Chua, C. K. (2011). Effects of layer thickness
and binder saturation level parameters on 3D printing
process. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 53(1-4), 275–284.
Wohlers Report (2013) Additive Manufacturing and 3D
Printing State of the Industry, Annual Worldwide
Progress Report, ISBN 0-9754429-9-6
Yao, A. W. L., & Tseng, Y. C. (2002). A robust process
optimization for a powder type rapid prototyper. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 8(3), 180–189.
Z Corporation (2005). Z Corporation 3D Printing
Technology, Company Brochure. Retrieved
from:http://www.zcorp.com/documents/108_3D%20Prin
ting%20White%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf Viewed on:
September 19, 2013
Zañartu-Apara, G., & Ramos-Grez, J. (2010).
Characterization of the mechanical properties of samples
fabricated by an experimental SGM device. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 16(5), 356–364.