See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325786530

STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF 3D PRINTING PARAMETERS ON THE

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF PLA

Conference Paper · May 2018

CITATIONS READS

52 8,985

5 authors, including:

Marco Leite Augusto M Deus

Instituto Superior Técnico - Universidade de Lisboa University of Lisbon
84 PUBLICATIONS   879 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   697 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Luis Reis M.F. Vaz

University of Lisbon IST University of Lisbon
270 PUBLICATIONS   3,147 CITATIONS    128 PUBLICATIONS   1,674 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TC10B “Hydrogen Embrittlement” Symposium, The Current State of the Art in Hydrogen Embrittlement Understanding, ECF23, 2022, Portugal View project

evaluation of dental implant performance immersed in saliva View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Augusto M Deus on 23 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3rd International Conference on Progress in Additive Manufacturing (Pro-AM 2018)
14-17 May 2018, Singapore
C.K. Chua, W.Y. Yeong, M.J. Tan, E.J. Liu and S.B. Tor (editors)

STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF 3D PRINTING PARAMETERS ON

THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF PLA
JOÃO FERNANDES
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

AUGUSTO M. DEUS
CeFEMA, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

LUIS REIS
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

MARIA FÁTIMA VAZ

IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

MARCO LEITE
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

ABSTRACT: This paper aims to determine the influence of 3D printing parameters, such as Infill
Density, Extrusion Temperature, Raster Angle and Layer Thickness, on mechanical properties,
namely Ultimate Tensile Strength, Yield Strength, Modulus of Elasticity and Elongation at Break,
in the case of polylactic acid (PLA), after it goes through the manufacturing process. Another
objective is to study water absorption by the PLA, with a goal to minimize it by means of a coating
agent. The influence of each printing parameter on each mechanical property is evaluated by using
analysis of variance (ANOVA).

KEYWORDS: (3D printing, PLA, Mechanical properties, water absorption, printing parameters)

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of 3D printers has increased significantly, and a continuation of this trend
is to be expected. The 3D printer is now being commonly used for the manufacture of a diverse
array of products, which can range from leisure articles to medical components (Gibson et al.
2015a). From all the 3D printing technologies, the one that is more accessible to the public is
Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) due to the vast number of companies that develop and market
this kind of printers and its relative low cost (Gibson et al. 2015b). In order to print an object using
the FDM technology there is a need to define a certain number of printing parameters. Since the
quality of the final product is influenced by the majority of these parameters it is of relevance to
know which, among them, are the most influential (Sood et al. 2012; Anitha et al. 2001; Wang et
al. 2007; Tymrak et al. 2014; Lanzotti et al. 2015a; Wittbrodt et al. 2015). The Design of
Experiments approach (DOE) has been used by researchers in order to plan the laboratory work in
such a way that results are trustworthy. There are three main aspects in the DOE: factor, level and
response. Design Matrices are used, and these are tables that have all the combinations of levels
between the different factors (Anderson et al. 2016; Lanzotti et al. 2015a). As FDM deposits
material directionally, the result is a layered specimen that has an anisotropic behaviour. Also, due
to the methodology of the process, air pockets form, which affect the mechanical properties
(Rodrıǵ uez et al. 2003; Li et al. 2002). One of the major drawbacks of this technology is that the
strength and stiffness of the FDM components are lower than the ones exhibited by a continuous
specimen made of the same polymer obtained by conventional processing, such as injection
moulding (Lee et al. 2007), so it is important to evaluate the influence of processing parameters on
mechanical properties. For that purpose tensile tests were performed on printed parts. Also, two
protective coating agents were tested using water absorption tests. Specimens were then tested
using compression testing following the procedure presented in (Leite et al. 2018).

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
To study the effects of parameters, a tensile test, following the standard ASTM D638-02a using a
Universal Testing Machine (Instron 3369) was utilized. The water absorption was analysed
according to the ASTM D570-98 standard with both uncoated and coated specimens. The
compressive tests were performed according to the ASTM D695-15 standard.

A Ultimaker 2™ machine was used to print all the specimens from the same filament roll. The
DOE factors considered are 4: infill density (A), extrusion temperature (B), raster angle (C) and
layer thickness (D). In Table 2 these factors are shown with the corresponding levels. In terms of
responses, from the tensile test the Ultimate Tensile Stress (σUTS), Yield Strength (σY), Modulus of
Elasticity (E), Elongation at Break (εf%) and Toughness (T) were chosen. For the printing
parameters that are fixed, the recommended standard profile was followed. Given the number of
levels in each factor, there were 24 experiments for the three specimen types that were tested.

It is known that the water content in a polymeric material can affect its mechanical properties. A
way of dealing with this problem is by coating the base material with a protective layer. To better
choose the right protective material, water absorption tests can be performed. In the present study,
these tests were made for the experiments that showed the best results from the tensile tests. Two
different protective materials were selected: a polyurethane wood sealant, Lakeone™, and an
acrylic aqueous varnish, Luxens™. The weighing of the cubes was done in intervals of 30 minutes,
for the first 4 hours, in intervals of 1 hour, for the next 4 hours, and in intervals of 24 hours, for the
next 4 days. In total, the cubes spent 104 hours inside water. The three properties that can be
obtained from this type of test are: Weight Gain (WG); Open Porosity (P); Absorption Coefficient
(AC).

Table 1 – Factors and its Levels

Factors Levels
0 1 2
A: Infill Density (%) 20 40 60
B: Extrusion Temperature (ºC) 200 220
C: Raster Angle (º) 0/90 -45/+45
D: Layer Thickness (mm) 0.1 0.2

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

MECHANICAL TESTING
In Figure 1 a broken specimen after the tensile test is shown. In Table 2 we have all the featured
responses from the two kinds of mechanical tests. The best values of the σUTS, σY and the E
correspond to the same experiment (number 21), with an Infill Density of 60%, an Extrusion
Temperature of 220ºC, a Raster Angle of 0º/90º and a Layer Thickness of 0.1 mm. In terms of the
best values of the εf% and the T, they both correspond to experiment #20, with an Infill Density of
60%, an Extrusion Temperature of 200ºC, a Raster Angle of -45º/+45º and a Layer Thickness of
0.2 mm.

Figure 1– Tensile Specimen after Test

Table 2 - Experimental values of every Response in the Tensile Test

Experiment # σUTS [MPa] εf [%] E [GPa] σYld [MPa] T [J/cm3]
1 20.71 3.33 1.04 17.27 0.46
2 19.09 3.36 0.94 15.71 0.53
3 20.20 4.16 0.93 15.32 0.69
4 17.67 4.40 0.72 10.96 0.74
5 22.63 3.59 1.01 16.49 0.40
6 19.79 3.69 0.93 14.14 0.47
7 21.36 4.33 0.89 12.78 0.58
8 18.20 4.40 0.78 12.73 0.61
9 24.18 4.08 0.95 14.49 0.59
10 22.35 4.61 0.97 14.97 0.67
11 19.91 4.65 1.01 16.74 0.78
12 22.24 4.49 0.91 15.18 0.89
13 24.97 3.51 1.13 19.09 0.49
14 26.14 3.59 1.19 20.07 0.53
15 25.31 4.56 1.06 17.76 0.65
16 24.32 4.46 0.96 15.94 0.74
17 26.23 4.28 1.22 19.05 0.76
18 26.55 5.01 1.23 20.61 0.81
19 29.43 4.87 1.25 21.07 0.95
20 25.22 5.51 1.00 15.99 1.19
21 30.22 4.21 1.32 21.31 0.72
22 28.67 4.45 1.20 19.42 0.77
23 29.43 4.40 1.21 21.27 0.85
24 26.71 4.77 1.09 17.85 1.07

Regarding infill density, it was observed an increase of every response, with the increase of the
Infill Density. The main goal in studying the Infill Density was to determine if, above a certain
level of this factor, the responses would stop improving significantly. But this was not the case. In
every response, there is a bigger increase when going from 40% to 60%, than when going from
20% to 40%. Regarding extrusion temperature, with the results obtained in (Sood et al. 2012)(Sun
et al. 2008), it can be concluded that adhesion between layers improves when the temperature
increases. But with an increase of temperature, at the end the material tends to become more
brittle, as concluded in (Ehrenstein et al. 2001). This might explain why the best results of σUTS, σY
and E were observed for the higher Extrusion Temperature (220ºC), and why the best results of the
εf% and T were observed for the lower Extrusion Temperature (200ºC). With the increase of
temperature, there is consequently a decrease in viscosity. With a lower viscosity, the extruded
material loses its sectional circular shape and it becomes oval. This tends to be somehow useful,
since it makes the contact area between layers bigger. In Figure 2, in the left, a SEM micrograph of
a cross section of the layers is shown. It can be seen that they are in fact oval and not circular.
Regarding raster angle, depending on the angle of the filaments relative to the direction of the
force applied, the distribution of stress in the filaments will be different. In some cases the
filaments are in a pure tensile stress state (0º), and in other cases they are in a mix of tensile stress
and shear stress (-45º and +45º). The best case is the one of pure tensile stress. This might explain
why the best results of the σUTS, σY were observed for a Raster Angle of 0º/90º. In other words, the
0º/90º Raster Angle provides a stiffer structure. This might explain the fact that the best results for
the E were observed for the 0º/90º Raster Angle. It’s worth noting that stiffness mentioned in this
paragraph is geometry stiffness, and not a material stiffness. But since the Raster Angle is a
geometry parameter, the facts presented might still be valid. Figure 2 shows SEM micrographs of
tensile test specimens after rupture, and it can be seen that rupture occurred on the filaments
intersections. Regarding layer thickness, the lower the Layer Thickness, the better the adhesion
between layers. This might explain the fact that the best results of the σUTS, and σY were observed
for the lower Layer Thickness (0.1 mm). Regarding factor combination, now that the factors were
analysed individually, it is relevant to see how they behave when combined with one another. The
combinations analysed will be: Infill Density*Extrusion Temperature; Infill Density*Raster Angle.
The way this works in the ANOVA is as follows: the second factor is analysed as a function of the
first, or in other words, we see how the response changes keeping the first factor constant and
varying the second. For example: the behaviour of the σUTS for an Infill Density of 20% is
analysed, when the Extrusion Temperature goes from 200ºC to 220ºC. This analysis depends on
the order of the factors. One interesting finding is that for higher infill the temperature becomes
less relevant. Also for a higher infill, the raster angles become also less relevant.

Figure 2 - SEM micrograph of the Rupture Zone of the Tensile Test Specimen: 0º/90º (left); -
45º/+45º (right)

WATER ABSORPTION RESULTS

In Figure 3 the plots obtained from these experiments are shown. It can be seen that in both cases,
the protective coating of polyurethane is the best in preventing the absorption of water by the PLA.
The lower the Layer Thickness, the rougher the surface is expected to be. As it can be observed in
Figure 4, the higher values of all three properties correspond to experiment #21, which has the
lowest Layer Thickness (0.1 mm). The main mechanism for water penetration in polymers is by
diffusion of water molecules in the micro voids between polymeric chains (Espert et al. 2004). It is
also known that the processing temperature of the polymer is responsible for the creation of these
micro-cracks. An increase in micro-cracks leads to an increase of water absorption (Dhakal et al.
2007). In a way this is linked to the porosity of the material. In this case, the Extrusion
Temperature of 220ºC was responsible for the highest Porosity, and consequently the highest
amount of water absorbed.
After the compression tests, it was verified that the integrity of the PLA wasn’t compromised by
the protective material. Results in Figure 5 show that there was even an improvement in the
mechanical properties in the case of the experiment #20. With this last information, and the one
from the water absorption tests, it can be confirmed that, in this case, the polyurethane protective
material is the best.

Figure 3 - Evolution of the Weight Gain as a function of the Square Root of the Immersion Time
for the Experiment #20 (left) and #21 (right)

Figure 4 - SEM Photograph Evidencing the Layer Thickness: 0.1 mm (left); 0.2 mm (right)

Figure 5 - Stress Vs. Strain Curves from the Compression Test for the Experiments #20 (left) and
#21 (right)

CONCLUSIONS
Comparing to other authors, we conclude the same as in (Wittbrodt et al. 2015; Tymrak et al.
2014; Lanzotti et al. 2015b) regarding the tensile testing. The best values of the σUTS, σY, and E
correspond to experiment #21 with an infill of 60%, an extrusion temperature of 220ºC, a raster
 angle of 0º/90º and a layer thickness of 0.1 mm. Regarding the water absorption tests, the
configuration that led to the least amount of water absorbed corresponds to the Extrusion
Temperature of 200ºC, and the Layer Thickness of 0.2 mm. Two protective materials were used to
decrease the water absorption, an acrylic based and a polyurethane based, and the second one
provided the best protection, in line with similar previous results (Leite et al. 2018).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by FCT, through IDMEC, under LAETA, project
UID/EMS/50022/2013. The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding by Ministério da Ciência,
Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, FCT, Portugal, under grant MITP-TB/PFM/0005/2013.

REFERENCES
Anderson, and Whitcomb. 2016. DOE Simplified: Practical Tools for Effective Experimentation. CRC Press.
Anitha, Arunachalam, and Radhakrishnan. 2001. “Critical Parameters Influencing the Quality of Prototypes
in Fused Deposition Modelling.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 118 (1–3). Elsevier:
385–388.
Dhakal, Zhang, and Richardson. 2007. “Effect of Water Absorption on the Mechanical Properties of Hemp
Fibre Reinforced Unsaturated Polyester Composites.” Composites Science and Technology 67 (7–8):
1674–1683.
Ehrenstein, and Theriault. 2001. Polymeric Materials: Structure, Properties, Applications.
Espert, Vilaplana, and Karlsson. 2004. “Comparison of Water Absorption in Natural Cellulosic Fibres from
Wood and One-Year Crops in Polypropylene Composites and Its Influence on Their Mechanical
Properties.” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 35 (11). Elsevier: 1267–1276.
Gibson, Rosen, and Stucker. 2015a. “Introduction and Basic Principles.” In Additive Manufacturing
Technologies, 1–18. New York, NY: Springer New York.
Gibson, Rosen, and Stucker. 2015b. “The Impact of Low-Cost AM Systems.” In Additive Manufacturing
Technologies, 293–301. New York, NY: Springer New York.
Lanzotti, Grasso, Staiano, and Martorelli. 2015a. “The Impact of Process Parameters on Mechanical
Properties of Parts Fabricated in PLA with an Open-Source 3-D Printer.” Edited by Eujin Pei. Rapid
Prototyping Journal 21 (5): 604–617.
Lanzotti, Grasso, Staiano, and Martorelli. 2015b. “The Impact of Process Parameters on Mechanical
Properties of Parts Fabricated in PLA with an Open-Source 3-D Printer.” Edited by Eujin Pei. Rapid
Prototyping Journal 21 (5). Emerald Group Publishing Limited : 604–617.
Lee, Kim, Kim, and Ahn. 2007. “Measurement of Anisotropic Compressive Strength of Rapid Prototyping
Parts.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 187–188: 627–630.
Leite, Varanda, Ribeiro, Silva, and Vaz. 2018. “Mechanical Properties and Water Absorption of Surface
Modified ABS 3D Printed by Fused Deposition Modelling.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 24 (1).
Li, Sun, Bellehumeur, and Gu. 2002. “Composite Modeling and Analysis for Fabrication of FDM Prototypes
with Locally Controlled Properties.” Journal of Manufacturing Processes 4 (2): 129–141.
Rodrıǵ uez, Thomas, and Renaud. 2003. “Design of Fused-Deposition ABS Components for Stiffness and
Strength.” Journal of Mechanical Design 125 (3): 545.
Sood, Ohdar, and Mahapatra. 2012. “Experimental Investigation and Empirical Modelling of FDM Process
for Compressive Strength Improvement.” Journal of Advanced Research 3 (1). Elsevier: 81–90.
Sun, Rizvi, Bellehumeur, and Gu. 2008. “Effect of Processing Conditions on the Bonding Quality of FDM
Polymer Filaments.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 14 (2). Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 72–80.
Tymrak, Kreiger, and Pearce. 2014. “Mechanical Properties of Components Fabricated with Open-Source 3-
D Printers Under Realistic Environmental Conditions.” Materials & Design 58 (June). Elsevier: 242–
246.
Wang, Wang, Zhao, and Liu. 2007. “Influence of Process Parameters on Part Shrinkage in SLS.” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 33 (5–6). Springer-Verlag: 498–504.
Wittbrodt, and Pearce. 2015. “The Effects of PLA Color on Material Properties of 3-D Printed Components.”
Additive Manufacturing 8. Elsevier B.V.: 110–116.

View publication stats