Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available
Availableonline
onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
ProcediaScienceDirect
Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
47th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference, NAMRC 47, Pennsylvania, USA
47th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference, NAMRC 47, Pennsylvania, USA
47th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference, Penn State Behrend Erie,
47th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference, NAMRC 47, Pennsylvania, USA
Low
Low velocity
velocity impact
impact of of ABS after
after shot
shot peening
ABSPennsylvania, 2019
peening predefined
predefined layers
layers during
during
Low velocity impact of ABS additive
aftermanufacturing
shot peening
additive manufacturing predefined layers during
Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
Haitham Hadidia,b additive
a,b, Brady
2017,Mailandmanufacturing
a, Tayler Sundermann
a
Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain a, Ethan Johnsona,
a a
Haitham Hadidi ,aBrady Mailand , Tayler a Sundermann , Ethan Johnson , a,
Gurucharan Madireddy a, Mehrdad Negahban a, Laurent Delbreilh c, Michael Sealy
c
a,*
Gurucharan
HaithamMadireddy
Hadidi , Brady
a,b , Mehrdad Negahban
Mailand a
, Tayler , Laurent
Sundermann Delbreilha , Michael
, Ethan JohnsonSealy
a
, *
Costing models
Gurucharan for
Department
Madireddy
Department
Department
a
a capacity
of Mechanical
a
of Mechanical
optimization
and Materials
, Mehrdad
and Materials
of Mechanical
b
Engineering, University
Negahban
Engineering,
Engineering,
a
, Laurent
University
Jazan University,
in Industry
of Nebraska,
of Nebraska,
Gizan, Lincoln,
Jazan 45142,
c 68588,4.0:
Lincoln, NE
Delbreilh , Arabia
NE
Saudi
MichaelUSA Trade-off
68588, USA Sealy *
a,

between used capacity and operational efficiency

Department of Mechanical
Normandie,Engineering,
INSA Rouen,Jazan University, Gizan, Jazandes
45142, Saudi Arabia
b
Normandie
c
Univ, UNIROUEN CNRS, Groupe de Physique Matériaux, 76000 Rouen, France
c
a
NormandieDepartment of Mechanical
Univ, UNIROUEN and Materials
Normandie, Engineering,
INSA Rouen, CNRS, University
Groupe de of Nebraska,
Physique desLincoln, NE 76000
Matériaux, 68588,Rouen,
USA France
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jazan University, Gizan, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
c
Normandie
* Corresponding author. Univ, UNIROUEN
Tel.: +1-402-472-1659; Normandie,
E-mail INSA
address: Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000 Rouen, France
sealy@unl.edu
A. Santana , P. Afonso , A. Zanin , R. Wernke
a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-402-472-1659; E-mail address: a,*
sealy@unl.edu b b

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-402-472-1659; E-mail address: sealy@unl.edu

a
University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
Abstract b
Unochapecó, 89809-000 Chapecó, SC, Brazil
Abstract
The current study investigates the influence of layer-by-layer shot peening (SP) on the low velocity impact properties of P430 acrylonitrile
Abstract
The current
butadiene study(ABS)
styrene investigates the influence
parts processed of layer-by-layer
by fused shot peening
filament fabrication (FFF). (SP) on the lowexamines
The experiment velocity impact propertiesbetween
the relationships of P430layer
acrylonitrile
peening
butadiene
frequency styrene
and build(ABS) parts processed
orientation with the by fused
impact filament fabrication
performance. (FFF).
Preferential The
layers experiment
were shot examines
peened to formthe relationships
cumulative betweenproperties
mechanical layer peening
that
Abstract
The current study investigates the influence of layer-by-layer shot peening (SP) on the low velocity impact properties of P430 acrylonitrile
frequency
influenced and
lowbuild
strainorientation
rateparts
impactwith the impact
behavior. performance. Preferential layers were shot peened to form cumulative mechanical properties that
butadiene styrene (ABS) processed by Samples peenedfabrication
fused filament every three, four,The
(FFF). and five layers
experiment were
examinescompared to surface-only
the relationships peened
between layerand non-
peening
influenced low strain
peened samples. Two rate impact
different behavior.
printing Samples were
orientations peened every three,
examined. four,
Lowlayers and
strain five
rate layersbehavior
impact were compared
after to surface-only
hybrid additive peened and non-
manufacturing was
frequency
Under and build
the concept orientation with
of "Industry the impact performance.
4.0", production Preferential
processes were
will shot peened to form cumulative mechanical properties that
peened
assessedsamples.
bylow Two
dropstrain different
towerrateimpact printing
and Charpy orientations
impact. were examined.
Results revealed Low
that strain
layer ratebe pushed
impact to after
behavior be increasingly
printinghybrid additive interconnected,
manufacturing was
influenced impact behavior. Samples peened every three, four,peening
and fivefrequency andcompared
layers were orientation influence
to surface-only ABS’
peened andability
non-
information
assessed
to absorb by drop
energy based
tower on afracture.
impact
and resist real
and time
Charpy basis
impact.and,
SP orientations
between necessarily,
Results
printed revealed much
that layer more
peening efficient.
frequency In
ofand this context,
printing capacity
orientation optimization
influence ABS’ ability
peened samples. Two different printing werelayers enhanced
examined. Low the impact
strain strength
rate impact ABS.
behavior Less
after frequent
hybrid peening
additive and side aligned
manufacturing was
to absorb
goes
printed energy
beyond
parts theandtraditional
resulted resist
in a fracture.
higher aim SPofbetween
toughness, capacity
impact printed layers
maximization,
strength, and enhanced
breakage the impact strength
contributing
resistance. also of organization’s
for ABS. Less frequent peening and and
profitability side value.
aligned
assessed by drop tower impact and Charpy impact. Results revealed that layer peening frequency and printing orientation influence ABS’ ability
printed parts resulted in a higher toughness, impact strength, and breakage resistance.
Indeed, lean management
to absorb energy and resist fracture. and continuous
SP between printedimprovement
layers enhanced approaches
the impact strengthsuggest
of ABS. capacity optimization
Less frequent peening andinstead of
side aligned
maximization.
printed parts resulted The in astudy
higherof capacity
toughness, optimization
impact strength, andand costing
breakage models is an important research topic that deserves
resistance.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
contributions
©
© 2019
2019
This The
is anThe
open
fromarticle
Authors.
Authors.
both
accessPublished
thebypractical
Published
under Elsevier
by
andB.V.
B.V.
the Elsevier
CC BY-NC-ND
theoretical perspectives. This paper presents and discusses a mathematical
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
model
This
This is for
an open
is The capacity
an open
Peer-review
© 2019
access
underaccess
Authors.
management
article under
articleby
responsibility
Published
the
under CC based
the CC
of Elsevier on
BY-NC-ND different
B.V.BY-NC-ND
the Scientific license costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Committee oflicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
NAMRI/SME.
Peer-review
developed
Peer-review under
and
under responsibility
it was used
responsibility ofanalyze
to the
of Scientific
the idle Committee
capacity
Scientific of NAMRI/SME.
and
Committee toofdesign strategies towards the maximization of organization’s
NAMRI/SME.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
value. The
Keywords:
Peer-review trade-off
additive
under capacity
manufacturing;
responsibility of maximization
hybrid;
the shot peening;
Scientific vs
impact;
Committee
Keywords: additive manufacturing; hybrid; shot peening; impact; ABS
operational
ABS
of NAMRI/SME. efficiency is highlighted and it is shown that capacity
optimization might hide operational inefficiency.
©Keywords:
2017 The additive manufacturing;
Authors. Published hybrid; shot peening;
by Elsevier B.V.impact; ABS
Peer-review
1. Introduction under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing components aids Engineering
design of Society
next International Conferencefor
generation materials
1. Introduction
2017. components aids design of next generation materials for
extreme environments.
The use of composites and hybrid materials for structural extreme environments.
Selection and design
design of
1. Introduction components aids of materials depend onmaterials
next generation the intended
for
The
Keywords: use
Cost of composites
Models; ABC; and
TDABC; hybrid materials
Capacity
applications, such as construction, automobiles, and aircraft for
Management; structural
Idle Capacity; Selection
Operational
application and design
andEfficiency
applied of Material
load. materialsbehavior
depend on the based
varies intendedon
extreme environments.
applications,
components, suchrisen
as construction, automobiles, isand aircraft application and applied andload. Material behavior varies based on
The use has of compositesconsiderably.
and hybrid This growth for
materials due to the
structural the applied
Selectionload
and design surrounding conditions.
of materials depend on theMaterials
intended
components, has risenhigh
need for lightweight, considerably. This growth
impact resistance, is due to and
high strength, the the applied
subjected to load and surrounding conditions. thanMaterials
applications, such as construction, automobiles, and aircraft application andstatic
applied loading behave behavior
load. Material differently
varies basedthose
on
need
1. for lightweight,
Introduction
cost effectivehas high
components. impact resistance,
These sought high strength,
after characteristics and subjected
subjected to static
to dynamic loading behave differently than those
components, risen considerably. This growth is due to the the applied load and loading.
surroundingPolymers undergo Materials
conditions. different
cost
makeeffective
polymers components.
and composites Theseprominent
sought afterandcharacteristics subjected to dynamic loading. Polymers undergo different
need for lightweight, high impacta resistance, high active
strength,areaand
of failure modes
subjected and result
to static in different
loading behave strengths
differentlyif than
exposed to
those
make polymers and composites a prominent and active area of failure modes and result in different strengths if exposed to
costThe
research cost
[1]. of
effective idleadditive
Since capacity
components. is a fundamental
manufacturing
These allows
sought after information
new design for companies
characteristics different toand
subjectedloading their management
conditions
dynamic of extreme
[2-4]. Polymers
loading. importance
undergo different
research
freedoms [1]. Since
related additive
to intricate manufacturing
geometries, allows
weight new design different loading conditions [2-4].
make
in polymers
modern
freedoms
and
production
related
composites
systems.
to intricate
a prominent
In general,
geometries, weight it reduction,
and isactive areaand
defined
reduction,
ofunused
as
and
failurePolymers
modesorand
capacity
Polymers
are ofresult
interest
production
are
in for impactstrengths
different
potential
of interest for
applications
and can be
impact applications
due to their
if exposed
measured to
layer-by-layer
research
in several [1].ways:treatment,
Since additive
tons of itproduction,
is essential
manufacturing to reexamine
allows
available new the
design
hours of relatively highetc.
different loading
manufacturing, strength-to-weight
conditions
The [2-4]. ratios.
management of the thisdue
In idle to their
research,
capacity
layer-by-layer
dynamic treatment,
behavior of 253it is essential
polymers. to reexamine
Understanding the
impact relatively materials
composite high strength-to-weight ratios. In ofthis research,
freedoms related
* Paulo Afonso. to intricate
Tel.: +351 geometries,
510 761; fax: weight
+351 253reduction,
604 741 and Polymers are ofare also of
interest forinterest
impactbecause
applications thedue
favorable
to their
dynamic
properties, behavior
materials of polymers.
characteristics, Understanding
and the effect of impact
surface composite
anisotropic materials
behavior are also
achieved of interest
is because
analogous to of
thatthe favorable
achieved in
layer-by-layer
E-mail address: treatment, it is
psafonso@dps.uminho.ptessential to reexamine the relatively high strength-to-weight ratios. In this research,
properties,
treatments materials
on the characteristics,
response and and the effect of
performance of surface
hybrid anisotropic
hybrid behavior achieved isprocessing
analogous toaffects
that achieved in
dynamic behavior of polymers. Understanding impact compositestructures.
materials are Hybrid
also of interest physical,
because of the favorable
treatments on the response and performance of hybrid hybrid structures. Hybrid processing affects physical,
properties,©materials
2351-9789 characteristics,
2017 The Authors. Publishedand the effect
by Elsevier B.V.of surface anisotropic behavior achieved is analogous to that achieved in
treatments
2351-9789
2351-9789©©
Peer-review on
© 2019
under
2019 the
The response
Authors. Published
responsibility
The Authors. and
of the performance
by Elsevier
scientific
Published B.V.
bycommittee
Elsevier of of hybrid hybridEngineering
the Manufacturing
B.V. structures.
Society Hybrid processing
International Conference affects
2017. physical,
2351-9789
This is an open 2019 The
access Authors.
article Published
under by Elsevier
the CC BY-NC-ND B.V.
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
This
This is an
is an open
Peer-review
open access
access
under
article
article under
responsibility
under the
the Scientific
of the CC BY-NC-ND CC BY-NC-ND
license
Committee
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
of (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
NAMRI/SME.
2351-9789
Peer-review
Peer-review ©under
2019
underTheresponsibility
Authors. of
responsibility Published by Elsevier
of the B.V.Committee
Scientific
the Scientific Committee of NAMRI/SME.
of NAMRI/SME.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.169
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of NAMRI/SME.
 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602
2 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
mechanical, and chemical properties within distinct regions
within a build. For these materials, it is important to characterize
mechanical behavior under low, medium, and high velocity
impact loads. Mihael et al. [5] discussed the performance of
composites under impact loading and the effect of loading
parameters on their performance. It was found that the mode of
failure and energy absorbed were affected by fiber orientation,
impact velocity, impactor weight, and strain rate. Agarwal [6]
also studied the effect of impact loading parameters on
composite performance. It was shown that breakage or failure
initiation and propagation during impact had direct dependence
on loading conditions and material configuration and stiffness.
This is important as hybrid process parameters are expected to
change failure mode and energy absorption in a similar manner.
As the technology of polymer manufacturing has evolved
to produce more complex geometries faster and cheaper, it
became a necessity to characterize the effect of these new
processes on the performance of produced components. One of
the primarily technological advances in polymer manufacturing
was additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing.
AM has demonstrated the capability to produce intricate parts
on a layer-by-layer basis faster and cheaper. One of the most
common AM processes compatible with a variety of different
polymers is fused filament fabrication (FFF). FFF is used to
make thermoplastic parts through heated extrusion and
deposition of materials layer-by-layer [7]. In this 3D printing
process, a material is heated and extruded through a nozzle and
deposited with a predetermined raster path onto a build plate to
form layers of the desired geometry. Deposited material
promptly solidifies and adheres with adjacent tracks of material
to form the required geometry. Although FFF has produced
complex, custom parts quickly and cheaply, the mechanical
properties of these parts are often inferior to those made with
traditional polymer manufacturing processes such as injection
molding.
Various methods to improve additively manufactured
polymers has been explored. The most widely investigated
approach is optimizing print process parameters, such as
extruder and print bed temperatures, raster angle, and print
speed. Another approach is to use post-processing techniques
that utilize thermal, chemical, or physical mechanisms, such as
annealing, radiation, or adding organic molecules [8] in an
attempt to improve mechanical properties. Sood et al.
investigated the influence of process parameters (i.e., layer
height, orientation, raster angle, air gap, and raster width) on
tensile, flexural, and impact strength of ABS P400 fabricated
using FFF [9]. Results showed that increasing part build
orientation 15° increased the impact strength due to the increase
in heat conduction towards the bottom layers, which led to
better bonding between adjacent rasters. Further increase in part
build orientation did not improve impact strength. Likewise,
Es-said et al. studied the effect of layer orientation on ABS
mechanical properties and found that the 0° orientation, where
layers were deposited along the length of the samples, displayed
superior strength and impact resistance over all the other
orientations [10].
Temperature variation during FFF process also affects the
properties and microstructure of produced parts. Benwood et al.
[4] investigated the possibility of improving PLA mechanical
595
properties by changing printing process thermal conditions and
by thermal treatment (annealing). The study revealed that
annealing affected the PLA crystalline phase, which in turn
improved the impact strength (i.e., absorbed more energy). It
was shown that an increase in bed temperature from 60 °C to
105 °C resulted in an 80% (35 to 63 J/m) increase in the impact
strength. Furthermore, Mansour et al. investigated the effect of
aging on mechanical properties of Accura SI40 epoxy resin
used in stereolithography (SLA) printing [11]. It was found that
after a 24-day cycle of aging, ultimate tensile strength, stiffness,
flexural modulus, and flexural strength increased. On the other
hand, the impact resistance and elongation at break decreased
because the aging cycle caused the material to become more
brittle and stiffer.
A process that is less explored is the use of surface
treatments on polymers, such as shot peening (SP), to improve
the mechanical properties. Neither static nor dynamic
mechanical properties of surface treated polymers were studied
extensively until lately by Kanger et al. [12] and Madireddy et
al. [13]. SP is a stochastic surface treatment technique that
utilizes spherical beads (metal or ceramic) discharged at high
pressure to cause dents and induce compressive stresses on
treated sample surface and subsurface. Further, FFF parts are
created layer-by-layer whereby surface treatments can be
applied at an optimal layer frequency throughout the part to
give tailored mechanical properties for a given application [14].
Coupling peening with FFF between layers is referred to as
hybrid additive manufacturing (hybrid-AM). Hybrid-AM is
defined by as “the use of one or more secondary processes or
energy sources that are fully coupled and synergistically
improve part quality, performance or functionality” [15].
Hybrid-AM has been applied mostly on metals by coupling
different processes or machines to improve parts properties.
Whereas, to my knowledge, no one has explored hybrid-AM of
polymers, especially dynamic impact properties.
The current study investigates the influence of shot
peening (SP) on the low velocity impact properties of ABS
P430 parts processed by FFF. The low velocity impact tests
included drop tower testing and Charpy impact testing. In drop
tower testing, impact acceleration and transmitted force were
measured and analyzed. In Charpy impact testing, impact
strength and failure mechanics were investigated. The
experiment examines the relationships between layer peening
frequency (surface peening and hybrid peening) and the impact
properties. Hybrid peening refers to applying SP between
printed layers on a preferential layer frequency. The samples
investigated in this study include the following: control (sample
with no peening applied); S (only the bottom and the top surface
layers were peened); L3 (sample peened after printing every
three layers); L4 (sample peened after printing every four
layers); and L5 (sample peened after printing every five layers).
Nomenclature
Hybrid-AM Hybrid additive manufacturing
FFF Fused filament fabrication
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
SP Shot peening
596 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

2. Experimental Procedure orientations and two geometries to explore the effect of

orientation and surface machining on impact properties as
2.1. Sample Preparation depicted in Fig. 3.

(a) Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)

4 mm

ABS samples were 3D printed by FFF on a Stratasys 2 mm

40 mm
10 mm
Dimension Elite printer as shown in Fig. 1. Layer height and
infill density were kept fixed while layer peening frequency (a) (b)
was changed according to the design of experiment. Table 1
Z
shows printing parameters used for producing samples for drop 20 mm
tower impact and Charpy impact. Y
X
ABS-430 filament with a 1.75 mm diameter and red color
produced by Stratasys was extruded through a heated nozzle at Fig. 2. Sample schematic of (a) drop tower impact samples vertically built
a temperature of 220 ºC. This temperature is above the glass along the z-axis and (b) Charpy samples.
transition temperature of ABS-430 and allows for smooth
material flow through the nozzle for deposition. Mechanical Machined Machined
and material properties are listed in Table 2. The build plate from plate from plate
(no outer shells) (no outer shells)
was heated and maintained at a temperature of 70 ºC to assure Z Z
Y Y
the adhesion of deposited rasters within each layer.

Red: Build
(a) X (b) X
Extruder Material
Head White: Extruder As-printed
Build Soluble Head As-printed
outer shells
Plate Support outer shells
Build Z Z Y
Y
Plate

(c)
X (d) X
(c)
Build Plate
(70°C) Fig. 3. Build orientation and surface finish of Charpy impact samples:
(a) (b) (a) 0°/90° raster cut from a printed plate, (b) 45°/-45° raster cut from a printed
(b) plate, (c) flat printed strip with 45°/-45° raster, and (d) vertical (Z-axis)
printed strip with 45°/-45° raster.
Fig. 1. (a) Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) process schematic; (b)
Stratasys Dimension Elite printer; and (c) printing platform. Charpy samples of
0°/90° raster cut
Table 1. FFF Printing parameters. Y from a printed plate
Variable Level
Layer Height 0.010 in (0.254 mm) Z
Minimum Wall Thickness 0.036 in (0.914 mm)
Raster Angle (from loading) -45°/45°
Infill Density High
Nozzle Temperature 220 oC
Build Plate Temperature 70 oC
Charpy samples of
Table 2. Mechanical and material properties of ABS-430 filament. 45°/-45° raster cut X
Material ABS from a printed plate
Density 1040 kg/m3
Glass Transition Temperature 108 oC Fig. 4. Schematic of the flat printed plate showing Charpy samples cut
Tensile Strength 33 MPa direction and raster angle.
Tensile Modulus 2.2 GPa
Flexural Modulus 1.65 GPa
Sets of strips and plates were printed flat with zero angle
Two different geometries for impact testing (drop tower along X-axis as illustrated in Fig. 3. Strips were made with two
impact and Charpy impact) were designed and printed different sizes. The dimensions of the first set of samples were
according to ASTM D695 and ISO 179:1982 (Fig. 2). Samples based on ISO 179:1982 (Plastics – Determination of Charpy
were printed at a 0.25 mm layer height, high infill density, and Impact Strength of Rigid Plastics), which were 80 mm by
45°/-45° raster angle with a flat horizontal orientation. The 10 mm by 4 mm for a total of 16 layers. The other sample set
dimensions for the drop tower samples were 20 mm in diameter was made with 80 mm by 10 mm by 5 mm for a total of
by 40 mm high for a total of 156 layers printed vertically along 20 layers and then machined down to match the ISO 179:1982
Z-axis. Charpy impact samples were printed with two standard. This step enabled investigation on the effect of outer
shells versus a machined surface on impact strength.
 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602 597
4 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

To obtain the machined samples, flat plates of 100 mm by

SP
100 mm were printed at two thicknesses of 4 mm and 5 mm. FFF

SP
Samples were then cut with two different orientations (0° from FFF
raster and 45° from raster) as shown in Fig. 4. The other sets of
Charpy samples were fabricated aligned along the width of the
sample with 80 mm by 4 mm at two different widths
(i.e., 10 mm and 11 mm) with a total of 40 and 44 layers,
respectively, Fig. 3(d). After printed samples were either
machined or cut, a 2 mm notch was made using CEAST 6816
Charpy notch cutter. Printing Shot Peening Printing Shot Peening
(FFF) (SP)
(b) Shot Peening (SP) Fig. 6. Schematic representation of hybrid-AM process coupling FFF and SP
on preferential layer sequence.
Samples were shot peened with steel beads ranging
between 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm in diameter. The nozzle diameter Drop tower impact specimens had three different layer
was 7.76 mm and had a standoff distance between 62.5 mm and peening frequencies; namely, as-printed control (C) with no
65 mm away from the sample’s surface. The peening time was peening applied, surface peened (S) of top and bottom faces,
2 minutes at 0.55 MPa (80 psi) air pressure. A pilot study was and hybrid L5 with peening every fifth layer as shown in
initiated to determine which protective layer could withstand Fig. 7(a). Charpy samples were made with three different layer
SP for two minutes, and it was found that painter’s tape worked peening frequencies, including: as-printed (C), L4, L3, and L2 as
best. A protective layer of plastic wrap was placed on the illustrated in Fig. 7(b).
surface of the sample with a layer of painter's tape over it. The
plastic wrap prevented the adhesive on the painter's tape from
contaminating the sample and the painter's tape prevented
surface damage for the required amount of peening time. The
tape protected the surface and prevented damage and layer (a)
delamination. The chosen material and thickness of the As-printed Surface Hybrid
protective layer is expected to impact the cumulative 3D (C) (S) (L5)
mechanical properties. The setup is shown in Fig. 5.

As-printed (C) Hybrid (L3)

Sample

Protective
tape layer Hybrid (L4) Hybrid (L2)
(b)
Peening
cabinet Fig. 7. Layer peening frequency in hybrid-AM sample fabrication: (a) drop
tower impact samples and (b) Charpy impact samples. Note that blue color
indicates layer peening frequency and is not representative of the actual
Fig. 5. Shot peening and protective layer setups. printed colors.

(c) Hybrid Process Parameters 2.2. Drop Tower Testing Procedure

In this study, FFF printing and shot peening (SP) were
cyclically coupled to form hybrid impact targets. Out-of-
envelope manual SP was applied on preferential layers
throughout the build. That is, samples were printed and peened
in a cyclically alternating pattern until completion of the build
(Fig. 6). For example, an L5 sample indicates peening was
applied after printing five layers. If 20 layers were printed at
L5, a total of 4 layers were peened.
For out-of-envelope SP, the printer paused and the build
plate was removed and placed inside the peening cabinet. Once
layers were peened, the build plate was returned to the printer’s
designated keyholes to ensure good alignment between peening
cycles. Geometric accuracy was comparable to continuously
built samples.
The drop tower is instrumented equipment used to
perform free fall impact test to assess energy absorption under
low velocity impact. Instrumented impact tests study and
measure the performance of the complete structure, which
depends on several aspects, including: target geometry, target
support orientation, material processing or manufacturing
method, and target material properties [16]. An instrumented
monorail uniaxial drop tower machine manufactured by Cadex
Inc. was used to conduct drop impact test on hybrid ABS
cylindrical samples (Fig. 8). The drop tower machine was
equipped with a 4.147 kg hemispherical impactor, a uniaxial
accelerometer with 5000 g capacity mounted within the
impactor’s center of gravity, a flat steel anvil, and a 25 kN load
cell to measure forces transmitted during the impact through
the target.
598 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

The 40 mm tall cylindrical samples were affixed to the

𝐴𝐴𝑘𝑘
anvil with a small thin piece of double-sided tape and fitted into Impact strength = (1)
the impactor and anvil. The impactor was raised and dropped 𝐿𝐿1 𝑥𝑥𝐿𝐿2
from a height of 3 m, and each layer peening frequency was
repeated by four independent samples. This test provides data
where Ak denotes impact energy (J), and L1 and L2 denote the
on impact velocity, force transmitted to the load cell after the
width minus the notch size (mm) and the thickness of the
impact, and g-force acceleration experienced by the impactor
sample (mm), respectively.
as a means to define material stiffness.

3. Results and Discussion

Impactor &
Accelerometer 3.1. Drop Tower

The effect of hybrid additive manufacturing (i.e., layer

peening frequency) on the impact acceleration and force is
discussed below. Table 3 identifies the average values for
hybrid L5, surface peened (S), and the as-printed control (C)
Time Gate samples.

Target Table 3. Average impact acceleration and force of hybrid shot peened ABS.

Treatment Impact Acceleration Peak Force

(ntotal = 12) (g) (kN)
C 406 28.04
S 417 28.17
L5 378 27.93

Fig. 8. Cadex drop tower machine and test setup.

(a) Impact Acceleration
2.3. Charpy Impact Testing
The impact acceleration response depends on the
deformation and vibration of the impactor-target system, which
Impact energy and strength of hybrid ABS parts were
is influenced by the stiffness and geometry of the target. The
determined using a Charpy impact test. The impact test was
results below present the peak impact acceleration and
performed on a CEAST 6545 Charpy impact tester in
temporal acceleration responses from dropping the hemi-
accordance with ISO 179:1982 (Fig. 9). Five specimens from
spherical steel on hybrid ABS cylinders. The peak impact
each peening condition were subjected to a quick and
acceleration (apeak) is a measure of the shock in g-force
concentrated impact by a 2 J hammer pendulum opposite of the
experienced by the accelerometer mounted within the
notched side. The hammer’s impact speed was 2.9 m/s. The
impactor’s center of gravity and is given by Eqn. 8.2. The faster
impact energy absorbed during the strike was a measure of a
the object changes from a downward velocity to an upward
material’s toughness and calculated by taking the difference in
velocity and the stiffer the target is the greater the peak impact
potential energy of initial and final position of hammer. The
acceleration.
impact strength was calculated based on the impact energy for
a notched specimen (Eqn. 1).
𝑇𝑇 𝜋𝜋 𝑔𝑔
𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑎𝑎 ( ) = √ (ℎ𝑑𝑑 + ℎ𝑟𝑟 )
2 𝑇𝑇 2
(2)
𝑇𝑇 𝜋𝜋 𝑣𝑣2 − 𝑣𝑣1
𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑎𝑎 ( ) = ( )
Impact direction 2 𝑇𝑇 2

where hd is the drop height, hr is rebound height as depicted in

Impactor

Fig. 10(a), v1 is initial velocity, v2 is final velocity, and T is the

Mounting pulse width of the impact, which corresponds to the width of
Bracket the initial peak acceleration verses time curve shown in
Fig. 10(b).

Fig. 9. CEAST 6545 Charpy impact tester.

 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602 599
6 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Prior though the energy dissipation properties of the control and

to surface peened samples were less, they were able to sustain
impact their structural integrity.

hd

Acceleration

As-printed
Acceleration (g)
hr
T Time

(a)

Surface peened
Time
(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Drop tower impact mechanism: (a) Schematic representation of the
pre- and post- impact heights and (b) a representative plot of acceleration (b)
versus time from drop impact testing.

The experiment showed that when SP was incorporated
within printed layers, as the case with L5, the impact linear
acceleration decreased as shown in Fig. 11. This decrease in
acceleration is an indication of a stiffness change. A stiffer part
results in a higher reaction force and hence a higher rebounding
height or velocity that causes more variation in the vibration
and linear acceleration of the impactor. The surface peened
samples (S) resulted in a relatively higher mean impact linear
acceleration as compared to the as-printed and hybrid case. The
large variation in error bars for L5 may be attributed to off axis
collision, heat cycle variation between printing and peening,
and non-uniform peening. Any systematic error occurring in
the process chain would be compounded across 31 cycles of
printing and peening.
440
Peak Acceleration (g)
Hybrid-L5
(c)
Fig. 12. Drop tower post-impact samples pictures: (a) as-printed control (C),
(b) surface peened (S), and (c) hybrid L5.
(b) Peak Impact Force
The experimentally measured impact forces for each
treatment are provided in Fig. 13. Results showed a decrease in
the transmitted force with peening between printed layers.
Hybrid L5 with peening applied after printing every fifth layer
transmitted the minimum force to the load cell. The lower value
of transmitted force indicated the sample’s impact energy
absorption was higher. A target capable of absorbing more

impact energy will experience more deformation and may

415 result in partial failure. This leads to a longer time for the wave
to travel through the target and hence less force to the load cell.
390
Fig. 13 demonstrates a common trend of hybrid-peened
365 samples to attenuate the transmitted force and dissipate energy
in a more effective way as peening was proportionally
340 associated to the specimen’s toughness and capacity to absorb
Control
C LSS L5
L energy.
5

29
Fig. 11. Impact peak acceleration of drop tower cylindrical samples.
Peak Force (kN)

The deformation of all specimens after the impact is

shown in Fig. 12. It should be noted that each of the samples in 28
the L5 group failed in a different way as seen in Fig. 12(c).
Some samples failed by shear fracture while others
delaminated. The as-printed (C) and surface peened (S)
27
samples experienced similar deformation behavior across all
C
Control S
LS L5
L5
repeated samples, Figs. 12(a) and (b). The introduction of
peening stiffened external surfaces that directly contacted the
Fig. 13. Impact peak force of drop tower cylindrical samples.
impactor and anvil. It is feasible that the stiff surface layers
directly contacting impactor and anvil upon drop caused a
3.2. Charpy Impact
higher reaction force leading to more vibration and hence a
higher acceleration measured by the accelerometer inside the
The effect of hybrid additive manufacturing (layer
impactor. An inspection of the samples upon impact revealed
peening frequency) on the impact strength is shown below in
that the peened structures underwent less densification thus
Fig. 14. Impact strength of hybrid parts varied based on layer
indicating low plasticity and more energy dissipation. Even
600 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 7

peening frequency. Further, hybrid-AM parts exhibited a Build Orientation B: The magnitude of impact energy
higher impact strength regardless of the orientation and and strength of samples having 45°/-45° raster and cut from a
machining conditions of the samples. printed plate with flat orientation was twice that obtained from
a similar plate having 0°/90° raster pattern, Fig. 14. Despite,
Z Raster
Z Y
Raster the magnitude being doubled between build orientations, the
Y orientation orientation
trend between a control and hybrid sample showed no
significant difference as listed in Table 5; rather peening every
Impact Impact
two layers (L2) led to lower toughness and hence to a lower
X X
direction direction energy absorption. Therefore, it is worth noting that the
Orientation A Orientation B 45°/-45° raster performs better than 0°/90° raster under impact
Cut (0°/90°) Cut (45°/-45°) loading regardless of what peening frequency.
Impact
direction Table 5. Single factor ANOVA of the differences in impact strength of cut
Raster
Z samples with 45°/-45° (orientation B).
Z Y Raster Y orientation
orientation Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 0.6450 2 0.3225 0.5923 0.5684 3.8853
Impact Error 6.5339 12 0.5445
X X Total 7.1789 14
direction
Orientation C Orientation D
Flat strip (45°/-45°) Side strip (45°/-45°) Build Orientation C: Hybrid-AM persisted showing an
increase in the energy absorption under dynamic loading
35 Orientation
Cut ( 0o/90o) A (impact loading) for parts fabricated with different geometries
Orientation B and orientations. For instance, Fig. 14 displays the increase in
Impact Strength (kJ/m2)

30 Cut (45o/-45o)
Orientation
Flat C
strip (45o/-45o) the toughness expressed by impact strength of hybrid-AM strip
25 Orientation
Side D
strip (45o/-45o) printed with flat orientation and 45°/-45° raster. These set of
20 samples were not exposed to cutting forces as opposed to those
Failed during
prepation and test made from the 45°/-45° plate with orientation B shown in
15 Fig. 14. The hybrid L3 sample showed slightly higher impact
10 strength than the as-printed (no peening). The results showed
approximately 5% increase in the impact strength between the
5
hybrid-L3 sample and the as-printed samples, but no statistical
0 significant was observed with this orientation Table 6.
C
Control L4 L4 L3L3 L2
L2
Table 6. Single factor ANOVA of the differences in impact strength of
Fig. 14. Comparison of ABS impact strength across multiple peening 45°/-45° raster non-machined samples (orientation C).
frequency and part orientations. Note that the Z-axis is the build direction. Source of
Note: each condition was repeated five times. Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 4.0062 2 2.0031 2.8329 0.0982 3.8853
Build Orientation A: The degree of toughness or fracture Error 8.4851 12 0.7071
Total 12.4913 14
energy was also associated with the orientation at which parts
were printed. Fig. 14 shows how layer peening frequency
Build Orientation D: The effect of layer peening
increased the energy absorption by 15% for samples having
frequency on the edge (side) printed strips’ (45°/-45° raster and
0°/90° raster and cut from a plate printed with a flat orientation
orientation D in Fig. 14) impact strength showed the best
(i.e., build orientation B). Even though differences in impact
energy absorption capability. The layers in this orientation
strength might not be significant in some orientations, such
were perpendicular to the striker direction, which resulted in
as B, energy absorption increased with hybrid processing as
improved shock mitigation and propagation through layers to
observed with orientations C and D. Table 4 shows the
the end of notched region. Layer orientation alone with no
statistical analysis (single factor ANOVA) of impact strength
peening applied exhibited a slightly higher impact energy than
across multiple layer peening frequency. Samples with peening
all other as-printed tested specimens. Further increase in
applied less frequently, as labeled by L3, resulted in higher
fracture strength was attained with applying SP within printed
impact strength when compared to the as-printed (no peening)
layers, such that hybrid L3 samples had improved impact
and hybrid L2 (peening after every two printed layers).
strength by 72% as shown in Fig. 14. Results showed that less
However, differences in impact strength of this orientation was
frequent peening L4 attained higher impact energy and impact
not significant.
strength of 150% than as-printed (no peening) and 75% than
Table 4. Single factor ANOVA of the differences in impact strength of L 3.
orientation A with cut 0°/90° raster samples. The fracture pattern of this orientation at different layer
Source of peening frequencies was unlike any other tested orientation.
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Delamination of layers and resistance to fracture were the main
Treatment 0.6300 2 0.3150 1.7993 0.2108 3.9823
Error 1.9258 11 0.1751 characteristics of this build orientation. L3 and L4 either had
Total 2.5559 13 irregular crack propagation pattern or incomplete failure.
 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602 601
8 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Fig. 15 presents the fracture mode in strips printed horizontally Fig. 14. The cause for that observation was attributed to having
flat (orientation C) and side aligned (orientation D). Excessive multiple layers of low cross-sectional area leading to low
peening at high layer frequencies in Orientation D caused ABS temperature gradient across the bottom of the part. This low
embrittlement, and parts were vulnerable to quick failure temperature gradient decreased the number of heating/cooling
during preparation and testing. Therefore, L4 was made and cycles and hence lowered the effect of residual stresses caused
tested instead and produced an unexpected result pertaining to by thermal variation to build up inside the parts and weaken the
the “less is more” philosophy. L3 and L4 treatment of this bonds that links the fibers together. In addition, impact forces
orientation showed a statistically significant increase in the were propagating through layers that were build perpendicular
impact strength compared to the as-printed and among each to the striker direction causing more resistance for crack
other. The peening frequency improved impact energy when propagation. These reasons could have enhanced interlayer
layers were printed with orientation D. Single factor ANOVA bonding, reduced interlayer cracking, lowered distortion, and
revealed a significant increase with p-values lower than 0.05 reduced delamination. Moreover, too much peening caused a
and 0.01 as illustrated in Table 7. Table 8 is a pairwise brittle and weak structure resulting in decreased impact
comparison (Tukey test) to show statistical significance among strength as seen with more frequent peening in the hybrid L2
the mean of all treatments. samples (Fig. 14).
The consequence of machining on impact strength was
also taken into account. Fig. 16 displays the effect of machining
Table 7. Single factor ANOVA and Tukey test of the differences in impact
strength of 45°/-45° raster side strips (orientation D)
a small portion of printed samples (i.e., 1 to 2 mm) on the
impact performance. It was found that machining the flat
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit (horizontal) oriented strip from 5 mm to 4 mm decreased the
Treatment 1074.795 2 537.3976 57.646 P<0.001 3.982 impact strength by 15%. While little to no effect was observed
Error 102.545 11 9.3223 on impact strength of side (edge) oriented strips when
Total 1177.340 13
machined from 12 mm to 10 mm.
These observations were due to the fact that machining
Table 8. Tukey test of the differences in impact strength of 45°/-45° raster caused or initiated cracks or weakened the interlayer bonding
side strips (orientation D) of the flat (horizontal) strip since layers were built normal to
Treatments Tukey HSD Tukey HSD Tukey HSD the machining direction. On the other hand, side (edge) printed
pair Q statistic p-value inferfence strips consisted of 48 layers as opposed to 20 layers which gave
C vs L4 14.8543 0.001005 p<0.01 it more resistance to residual stresses caused by machining that
C vs L3 4.2225 0.030601 p<0.05
L4 vs L3 10.8733 0.001005 p<0.01 might lead to shrinkage or distortion of printed layers.
Additionally, machining was done along the same direction the
layers were stacked which meant layers were less prone to
delamination.
As-printed As-printed

12 Flat oriented strip

Side oriented strip
Impact Strength

L2 8
(kJ/m2)

L3

4
(b)
L3 0
As-printed Machined
(a)
Fig. 16. Effect of machining on ABS impact strength.
Fig. 15. Impact fracture modes: (a) horizontal flat printed strip with 45°/-45°
raster of samples printed as a strip and (b) side aligned printed strip with
45°/-45° raster samples.
4. Summary and Conclusions
The long and few layers (flat printed strip) led to
This study examined the influence of interlayer shot
increased heat conduction towards the bottom layers and
peening on the low velocity dynamic (i.e., drop tower impact
caused the temperature to rise at the bonding interface. Thus,
and Charpy impact) mechanical properties of ABS-430 parts
good diffusion occurred among adjacent rasters as well as
produced on a Stratasys Elite FFF machine. The study explored
reduced interior stress among the adjacent beads because of
the effect of hybrid-AM on mechanical properties from several
fewer voids and lower porosity. SP likely contributed to a more
layer peening frequencies and build orientations. Hybrid
closed bead formation that resulted in high values of impact
conditions under investigation included SP every fifth (L5),
strength. On the other hand, the side printed (upright) part
fourth (L4), third (L3), and second (L2) layer and comparing to
orientation coupled with the lower heat transfer rate
a control sample with no peening and another control sample
contributed to improving the impact strength as shown in
with only external surface peening (S).
602 Haitham Hadidi et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 34 (2019) 594–602
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
The experimental results showed that peening within
printed layers affected dynamic impact properties. In most
cases, the extent of improvement was determined by the layer
frequency of peening. Less frequent peening caused a
significant change in the resulting mechanical properties,
including stiffness and impact strength.
The L5 drop tower samples experienced a variety of
failure modes. Despite the fact that samples showed different
fracture modes, hybrid-L5 samples led to a lower reaction force
and lower transmitted force to the load cell located underneath
the tested samples. This indicated that the stiffness was lower
for hybrid-AM.
In the Charpy test, the side (edge) printed samples with a
higher number of layers resulted in the highest impact strength
and exhibited delamination of layers upon impact. The increase
in strength was because each layer acted as a barrier to total
fracture. The crack must first break a layer and start again on a
subsequent layer causing layer delamination along the impact
path until either reaching complete fracture or completely
mitigating the kinetic energy. The delamination was likely
caused by layers resisting the impact and/or due to the layered
manufacturing of samples of taller parts that have weak
interlayer bonding or interlayer porosity because of
temperature drops and variation from the bottom to the top
layers as suggested by other researchers [10, 17] .
Results revealed that either weak interlayer bonding or
interlayer porosity controlled the fracture paths. In impact
testing, the weak interlayer bonding was a result of residual
stresses caused by shrinkage and thermal variation or by the
low molecular diffusion during deposition from the melt. The
weak interlayer bonding caused layers to slide and shear;
however, it revealed better energy absorption and ductility as
the case in Charpy impact.
The important conclusion from this study was the fact that
the mechanical behavior of 3D printed polymer parts is highly
influenced by the layer peening frequency in hybrid-AM.
Results suggest that less frequent peening provides better
impact behavior. Therefore, further studies are recommended
to attain the optimal layer peening frequency suited for a
specific extreme environment.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jazan University for
financial support of the lead student investigator. Further, this
work was also supported by Dr. Jeffrery Shield and the
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln as part of an
undergraduate/graduate additive manufacturing research
course. Lastly, the authors wish to acknowledge the STEM
Undergraduate Research in France Program supported by the
9
Transatlantic Friendship & Mobility Initiative grant from the
French Embassy in the United States.
References
[1] Silvestre, J., Silvestre, N., de Brito, J., 2016. Polymer nanocomposites for
structural applications: Recent trends and new perspectives, Mechanics
of Advanced Materials and Structures, 23(11), pp. 1263-1277.
[2] Vega, V., Clements, J., Lam, T., Abad, A., Fritz, B., Ula, N., Es-Said,
O.S., 2011. The Effect of Layer Orientation on the Mechanical Properties
and Microstructure of a Polymer, Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance, 20(6), pp. 978-988.
[3] Owolabi, G., Alex Peterson, A., Habtour, E., Riddick, J., Coatney, M.,
Olasumboye, A., Bolling, D., 2016. Dynamic response of acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene under impact loading, International Journal of
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 11(3), pp. 1-8.
[4] Benwood, C., Anstey, A., Andrzejewski, J., Misra, M., Mohanty, A.,
2018. Improving the Impact Strength and Heat Resistance of 3D Printed
Models: Structure, Property, and Processing Correlationships during
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) of Poly(Lactic Acid), American
Chemical Society, 3, pp. 4400-4411.
[5] Mihael, C., Ramona, D., Laurentiu, D., 2010. The Impact Behaviour of
Composite Materials, pp. 45-50.
[6] Agarwal, B.D., Broutman, L.J., 2006. Analysis and Performance of Fiber
Composites, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Third Edition, pp. 1-576.
[7] ISO/ASTM International, 2015. ISO/ASTM 52900:2015(E) - Standard
terminology for additive manufacturing - General Principles -
Terminology, Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies,
pp. 1-9.
[8] Weng, Z., Wang, J., Senthil, T., Wu, L., 2016. Mechanical and thermal
properties of ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition
modeling 3D printing, Materials & Design, 102, pp. 276-283.
[9] Sood, A.K., Ohdar, R.K., Mahapatra, S.S., 2010. Parametric appraisal of
mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts,
Materials & Design, 31(1), pp. 287-295.
[10] Es-Said, O.S., Foyos, J., Noorani, R., Mendelson, M., Marloth, R.,
Pregger, B.A., 2000. Effect of Layer Orientation on Mechanical
Properties of Rapid Prototyped Samples, Materials and Manufacturing
Processes, 15(1), pp. 107-122.
[11] Mansour, S., Gilbert, M., Hague, R., 2007. A study of the impact of short-
term ageing on the mechanical properties of a stereolithography resin,
Materials Science and Engineering: A, 447(1), pp. 277-284.
[12] Kanger, C., Hadidi, H., Akula, S., Sandman, C., Quint, J., Alsunni, M.,
Underwood, R., Slafter, C., Sonderup, J., Spilinek, M., Casias, J., Rao,
P., Sealy, M.P., 2017. Effect of Process Parameters and Shot Peening on
Mechanical Behavior of ABS Parts Manufactured by Fused Filament
Fabrication (FFF), Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp. 444-458.
[13] G., M., M., M., E., C., J., B., N., U., Y., K., B., M., B., S., S., C., K., K.,
M.P., S., P., R., 2017. Effect of Process Parameters and Shot Peening on
the Tensile Strength and Deflection of Polymer Parts Made using Mask
Image Projection Stereolithography (MIP-SLA), Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, pp. 1761-1770.
[14] Sealy, M.P., Madireddy, G., Li, C., Guo, Y.B., 2016. Finite element
modeling of hybrid additive manufacturing by laser shock peening, Solid
Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp. 306-316.
[15] Sealy, M.P., Madireddy, G., Williams, R.E., Rao, P., Toursangsaraki, M.,
2018. Hybrid Processes in Additive Manufacturing, Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 140(6), pp. 060801:1-13.
[16] Reed, P.E., 1999. Falling Weight Impact Tests, in Mechanical Properties
and Testing of Polymers, G.M. Swallowe, Editor. Springer
Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, pp. 57-60.
[17] Rizvi, G.M., Bellehumeur, C.T., Gu, P., Sun, Q., 2008. Effect of
processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, 14(2), pp. 72-80.