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

net/publication/373831745

Mechanical Evaluation of PET-G 3D-Printed Wrist-Hand Orthosis: An

Integrated Experimental and Numerical Approach

Article in Materials · September 2023

DOI: 10.3390/ma16186132

CITATIONS READS

0 20

3 authors, including:

Ratnesh Raj Anna Karwasz

Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad Poznan University of Technology
8 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 209 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

ICMMM 2021-22 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ratnesh Raj on 11 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 materials
Article
Mechanical Evaluation of PET-G 3D-Printed Wrist-Hand
Orthosis: An Integrated Experimental and Numerical Approach
Krzysztof Łukaszewski 1, * , Ratnesh Raj 2
Citation: Łukaszewski, K.; Raj, R.;
Karwasz, A. Mechanical Evaluation
of PET-G 3D-Printed Wrist-Hand
Orthosis: An Integrated
Experimental and Numerical
Approach. Materials 2023, 16, 6132.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma16186132
Academic Editor: Antonino Recca
Received: 31 July 2023
Revised: 31 August 2023
Accepted: 4 September 2023
Published: 9 September 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2023, 16, 6132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16186132
and Anna Karwasz 1
1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo 3 STR, 61-138 Poznan, Poland;
anna.karwasz@put.poznan.pl
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines),
Dhanbad 826004, Jharkhand, India; rtnsh07@gmail.com
* Correspondence: krzysztof.lukaszewski@put.poznan.pl
Abstract: Limb injuries frequently necessitate orthotic bracing, and the utilization of material extru-
sion (MEX) additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing offers a rapid and cost-effective means of
producing orthoses. These characteristics are highly sought after in today’s orthotic market. The
study focused on the mechanical strength analysis of the wrist-hand orthosis (WHO) made of PET-G
filament. Experimental testing and simulation were employed to assess the properties of individual-
ized wrist orthoses fabricated through the MEX AM process. Standard three-point bending samples
were manufactured using PET-G filament on a low-cost MEX 3D printer, alongside orthotic fragments
and complete orthosis. Experimental testing was performed using a universal testing machine, and
results were juxtaposed with those from a finite element simulation model created in the Abaqus
environment. This comprehensive research approach facilitates the comparison of the modulus of
elasticity of the fabricated components, enabling a comparison between the mechanical properties of
the complete wrist-hand orthosis (WHO) product and those of a conventional bending sample.
Keywords: material extrusion; 3D printing; wrist-hand orthosis; modulus of elasticity; FEA simulation
1. Introduction
The wrist-hand orthosis (WHO) serves as an external medical device designed to
provide support to the wrist and hand during the treatment of upper limb conditions
such as fractures, sprains, and injuries [1]. WHO devices offer stabilization, stiffness,
and proper wrist positioning. They find application among both children and adults
owing to their lightweight and breathable nature. These orthoses are constructed from
materials such as textiles, Velcro, and plastics, facilitating breathability, moisture control,
and comfort. Additionally, additive manufacturing (AM) presents a viable approach for
their production [1,2]. This technology enables the creation of tailored orthotic solutions,
precisely suited to an individual’s specific condition and requirements.
Utilizing a low-cost material extrusion (MEX) 3D printer, wrist-hand orthoses (WHO)
were produced, circumventing the need for time-consuming and intricate tooling processes.
This approach offers a heightened level of customization, enabling WHOs manufactured
via 3D printing to be precisely tailored to individual patient requirements encompassing
size, shape, and aesthetics. The efficient production timeline, coupled with a tailored fit
for specific cases, contributes to heightened patient satisfaction and expedites the recovery
process for injuries [3–6].
The primary objective of this research was to conduct a strength analysis on an orthosis
crafted from polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PET-G) material utilizing a MEX 3D printer.
The impetus behind performing the analyses detailed in the article also stems from the
aspiration to enhance the product and comprehend the influence of production process
parameters on the product. The goal was to identify the optimal process that aligns with
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 2 of 19

the usage attributes of the object, encompassing factors such as weight, strength, and
skin-friendliness.
The use of PET-G for the production of orthoses is beneficial due to [7]:
• being the most commonly recycled thermoplastic, it is not biodegradable but recyclable,
• having a very low thermal shrinkage,
• being odorless,
• not degrading in water or absorbing moisture, which is very important in case of
contact with sweat,
• unlike PLA, not being brittle and being more flexible than PLA or ABS,
• being relatively easy to print (there are no requirements as to the type of 3D printer).
In their research, the authors also evaluate the use of other materials, as presented in
papers [1] for ABS and [2] for PLA.

2. Literature Review
The material extrusion (MEX) process is an additive manufacturing (AM) process
in which material, usually thermoplastic, is dispensed through a nozzle [8]. Additively
fabricated items find diverse applications, notably within the medical field. Illustrative
instances encompass surgical aids [9], implants including cochlear implants [10], and per-
sonalized prosthetics and orthotics such as the WHO [11]. Objects fabricated through the
MEX technique are produced by layering plasticized thermoplastic material [12] in the form
of filaments. Frequently employed materials encompass PET-G, polylactic acid (PLA), acry-
lonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA),
polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) thermoplastics;
however, the assortment of materials and applications continue to expand [13].
Certainly, embedding sensors within structures is indeed one of the noteworthy
advantages that MEX offers. This capability allows for the creation of smart structures,
enabling enhanced monitoring and functionality [12,14].
The MEX 3D printing is distinguished by pronounced anisotropy in its strength. The
processing conditions wield substantial influence over the mechanical strength of the fab-
ricated parts. Even a slight adjustment in a single process parameter, such as altering
the orientation of the product within the workspace of the 3D printer, can yield notewor-
thy disparities in strength of the manufactured samples [15]. In paper [16], the authors
demonstrate that despite the additive layer-by-layer formation of parts, determining prod-
uct properties analytically necessitates an approach distinct from the existing presumed
models for laminated composites. The research carried out by the authors in [17] pro-
poses the analysis of products produced using the MEX method as orthotropic composites,
wherein the extruded material fibers constitute the matrix and the fillers represent voids.
Comparing two simulation models created with Abaqus software affirms that treating
the MEX-produced item as an orthotropic anisotropic material is appropriate. Leverag-
ing the capabilities of the Abaqus system, calculations for anisotropic materials become
feasible, enabling the incorporation of a suitable modulus of elasticity values for specific
orientations [18]. Both solid and layered models yielded outcomes akin to those acquired
through testing tangible samples [19]. A more complex endeavor involves formulating an
analytical model for a multi-material WHO crafted within a single MEX process through
dual extruders [20].
An additional significant consideration, indirectly entwined with various technical
parameters and the geometry of the product in the context of properties linked to items pro-
duced via the MEX method, pertains to the temperature status of the preceding layer when
applying the subsequent layer. As elucidated by the authors of [21], the temperature of the
underlying layer plays a pivotal role in determining the ultimate tensile strength (UTS)
value. This temperature parameter is contingent upon multiple factors, encompassing bed
and nozzle temperatures, as well as printing speed. In instances involving smaller-sized
samples, material extruded in the initial layer has limited time to cool in comparison to
products with larger dimensions. Consequently, it is plausible to assume that a similar
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 3 of 19

correlation might manifest in the context of other strength characterization metrics for
products generated through the MEX method.
The investigation conducted in [21] further establishes that extrusion efficiency pro-
foundly affects strength parameters, specifically due to the presence of volumetric errors
inherent to the nature of the MEX process. These errors correspond to regions where no
material is deposited, subsequently influencing the overall density of the final product.
Although a simplistic viewpoint might posit that products of similar density would exhibit
analogous properties, comprehending the occurrence and location of such volumetric
errors within a specific product holds significance. Nonetheless, by gauging the mass of
geometrically identical samples from a designated series, it becomes possible to deduce the
reproducibility of the manufacturing process.
MEX 3D printing offers the advantage of swiftly producing fully individualized,
unitary items, a notable contrast to conventional manufacturing methods such as injection
molding. Nevertheless, fabricating prototypes to conduct essential experiments for refining
novel designs remains a laborious and financially impractical endeavor. As such, several
researchers have endeavored to employ computational techniques to anticipate a product’s
mechanical responses [19]. Consequently, this approach substantially curtails the necessity
for extensive experimental measurements, leading to cost and time reductions in the
manufacturing process, ultimately expediting the product’s journey to the consumer [22].
This acceleration can prove pivotal, particularly in medical applications where swifter
delivery holds paramount importance, particularly for tailor-made products designated for
specific individuals.
It is important to highlight the absence of comprehensive methodologies within the
existing literature that sufficiently detail the acquisition of material data for items produced
through 3D-printing technology, particularly for the purpose of numerical testing, partic-
ularly within the domain of medical device applications. A case in point can be found
in the literature [23], which introduces a methodology for conducting simulations and
experimental analyses on an open-wrist orthosis (comprising solely the lower part of the
shell). Notably, the applied force was exerted from the distal aspect, i.e., the palm side.
However, the discussion in this paper omits any mention of the material data employed
in the simulations. Numerous papers that elucidate simulation tests utilizing the finite
element method fail to establish a comparison between outcomes attained through ex-
perimental tests. This includes papers that exclusively employ mechanical parameters of
the material [24–27] and those that solely delineate the technique for applying loads to a
simulated model of the orthosis [28].
The review of the existing literature underscores the rationale for conducting a study
with the objective of ascertaining the applicability of a numerical approach in characterizing
products engendered through MEX 3D printing, specifically in the context of wrist orthoses.
These orthoses, employed in post-traumatic treatment, necessitate prompt delivery to pa-
tients. Consequently, the numerical model must satisfy two pivotal criteria. Firstly, it must
yield realistic outcomes that facilitate orthosis geometry design and rapid manufacturing
using the MEX technique. Secondly, the computations must be expedient, enabling the
immediate commencement of individual orthotic production subsequent to the acquisition
of anthropometric data from the patient.
The innovation behind crafting hand orthosis using PET-G via 3D printing stems from
its revolutionary approach to producing personalized orthotic devices. This method en-
compasses several distinct elements: Firstly, the selection of PET-G material for 3D printing
hand orthoses introduces a contemporary and pioneering choice. PET-G is renowned for
its robustness, flexibility, and suitability in medical contexts, rendering it an exceptional
candidate for constructing orthotic devices that ensure both hand support and comfort.
The utilization of 3D-printing technology for shaping hand orthoses heralds a transfor-
mative shift in the manufacturing landscape. This technique facilitates intricate designs
and bespoke fittings that prove challenging to achieve using conventional methods. It
empowers the generation of intricate geometries meticulously tailored to each individual’s
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 4 of 19

distinct hand structure. The hallmark of this novelty rests in the capability to customize
hand orthoses according to the precise requirements of each patient. Unlike mass-produced
counterparts, this approach guarantees an exact fit and heightened functionality, fostering
patient comfort and adherence to prescribed treatment protocols. The incorporation of sim-
ulation studies in this research introduces an inventive dimension. By harnessing numerical
simulations, the study strives to anticipate the behavior and performance of the produced
hand orthosis across diverse scenarios. This strategy optimizes the testing procedure and
notably truncates the time traditionally consumed by physical experimentation. Further
innovation manifests through the simulation-driven design approach, allowing for rapid
design iteration and enhancement. Researchers can make well-informed decisions about
design parameters, material thicknesses, and structural components by virtually assessing
their influence on the orthosis’ efficacy. This results in a more refined and efficacious final
product. The amalgamation of PET-G 3D-printed hand orthoses and simulation-driven
design carries considerable relevance within the realm of medical devices. This amalgam
has the potential to expedite the development of bespoke solutions for patients, particularly
in post-traumatic scenarios where prompt intervention plays a pivotal role in recovery.
In summary, the pioneering nature of hand orthosis fabrication using PET-G via 3D
printing arises from its utilization of state-of-the-art materials, personalized customization,
and simulation-guided design. This approach not only elevates patient outcomes but
also signifies a significant advancement in the arena of orthotic device manufacturing and
patient care.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Plan
The orthotic must have the best possible strength properties while being as light as
possible to allow for comfortable use. In addition, the manufacturing time for the orthotic
must be minimized so that the finished product is available within hours of the patient’s
limb being scanned. To achieve this goal, a series of experiments and simulation trials were
planned.
The following activities were conducted:
• sample preparation: standard 3-point bending samples, samples of the orthotic center
without and with openings, and samples of the entire orthotic shape,
• measuring the density of the samples,
• bending test,
• modeling and simulation (FEM) of sample loads,
• comparison of displacement values from experiment and simulation, and determina-
tion of measured elastic modulus based on simulation results.
Given the equivalence of the force employed in the simulation (Ps) to the force derived
from experimentation (Pe), along with matching mass and geometric attributes between
the simulation and experiment, Equation (1) allows for the direct determination of the
actual modulus of elasticity (Ee ).
U · Es
Ee = is (1)
Uie
where:
Ee —real value of elastic modulus [MPa],
Es —simulated value of elastic modulus [MPa],
Uie —experimentally obtained displacement value [mm],
Uis —simulated displacement value [mm].
The methodology and results of the work performed are detailed later in the article.
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Uie—experimentally obtained displacement value [mm],

Materials 2023, 16, 6132 5 of 19
Uis—simulated displacement value [mm].
The methodology and results of the work performed are detailed later in the article.

3.2.Manufacturing
3.2. ManufacturingofofSamples
Samples
AAFlashForge
FlashForge(Jinhua,
(Jinhua, China)
China) Creator
Creator Pro
Pro 3D
3D printer
printer was
was used
used in
inthe
thetests.
tests.The
Thevalues
values
of the
of the most
most important
important operating
operatingparameters
parametersofofthe
themanufacturing
manufacturingprocess
processarearelisted
listedin
in
Table1.1.
Table

Mainparameters
Table1.1.Main
Table parametersof
of3D-printing
3D-printingprocess.
process.

ExtrusionTemperature
Extrusion Temperature Extrusion Speed
Extrusion Speed Layer Thickness
Sample
Sample No.
No. Machine Machine Material
Layer Thickness [mm] Material
[◦[°C]
C] [mm/s]
[mm/s] [mm]
1 1 235
235 40 40
2 2 235
235 85 85 FlashForge Creator
FlashForge PET-G
0.3 0.3 PET-G
3 3 250
250 40 40 Pro Creator Pro
4 4 250
250 85 85

PET-G
PET-Gmaterial
materialwaswasused
usedinin the
the production
production of
of all
all samples.
samples. All
Allsamples
sampleswere
weremade
made
from one batch of material from the same manufacturer.
from one batch of material from the same manufacturer.
Product
Productdata,
data,one
onespool
spoolof
ofPET-G
PET-G filament,
filament,trade
tradename
name“PET-G
“PET-GStandard
Standard1.75
1.75mm
mm
Blue Sky Transparent 0.8 kg”. Manufacturer, responsible entity: ROSA PLAST SP. z
Blue Sky Transparent 0.8 kg”. Manufacturer, responsible entity: ROSA PLAST SP. z o.o.ul. o.o.ul.
Hipolitowska
Hipolitowska102B,
102B,05-074
05-074Hipolitów,
Hipolitów,Poland.
Poland.Recommended
Recommendedworking
workingparameters
parametersfor
for3D
3D
printing [29]:
printing [29]:
•• extrusion
extrusiontemperature
temperature220–250
220–250[°C].
[◦ C].
Physical
Physicalparameters
parameters[30]:
[30]:
•• density
density1.291.29[g/cm
[g/cm 3],
3 ],
•• heat
heat deflection temperature(HDT)
deflection temperature (HDT)78 [◦ C].
78 [°C].
In
Inthe
the first
first step,
step,aa standard
standardtesttestsample
sample(P) (P)was
wasprepared
preparedfor
forthe
the3-point
3-pointbend
bendtest
test
(Figure
(Figure 1). This test sample was prepared according to the guidelines of EN ISO178
1). This test sample was prepared according to the guidelines of EN ISO 178[30].
[30].
Next,
Next,aasample
samplein inthe
theshape
shapeof ofthe
thecentral
centralpart
partofofthe
thebrace
brace(MP)
(MP)was
wasprepared.
prepared.TheThethird
third
type
typewas
wasan anorthosis-shaped
orthosis-shapedsamplesample(F),
(F),which
whichwas wasnot
notdivided
dividedinto
intotwo
twoshells.
shells.The
Thelast
last
type
type(fourth
(fourthtype)
type)of oftest
testsample
samplewaswasananorthotic-shaped
orthotic-shapedsample
sampleconsisting
consistingofofaalower
lowershell
shell
(SB)
(SB)and
andananupper
uppershell
shell(ST).
(ST).

Figure
Figure1.1.Dimensions
Dimensionsofofthe
thetest
testsample—iso
sample—isoview
viewwith
withthe themarked
markedspacing
spacingof
ofthe
thesupports
supportsof
ofthe
the
testing
testingmachine:
machine:LcLc==100
100mm,
mm,LL==6464mm,
mm,hh= =4 4mm,
mm,b b= =1010mm.
mm.

Straight
Straightinfilling
infilling(honeycomb)
(honeycomb)of of10%
10%waswasused
used for
for all
all samples.
samples. The
Theouter
outercontour
contour
consisted
consistedofoftwo
twocontours
contours0.30.3mm
mmwide.
wide.
The
The3D3Dprinter
printerproduced
producedaaseries
seriesof
ofsamples
samplesinindifferent
differentorientations
orientationsin
inthe
theworking
working
chamber
chamber(see
(seeFigure
Figure2).2).Refer
RefertotoFigure
Figure22for
forP-5
P-5samples,
samples,MP-3MP-3samples,
samples,PPsamples,
samples,ST
ST
samples,
samples,and
andSB-2
SB-2samples.
samples.
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

Materials 2023,
Materials 16,16,
2023, x FOR
6132PEER REVIEW 6 of6 19
of 19

Figure 2. Designation of a series of samples and their arrangement in the working chamber.
Figure 2. Designation of a series of samples and their arrangement in the working chamber.
Figure 2. Designation of a series of samples and their arrangement in the working chamber.
Figure 3 shows the original fabricated samples. Every produced sample underwent
Figure 3 shows the original fabricated samples. Every produced sample underwent
a meticulous
Figure 3 visual
shows assessment
originaltofabricated
theassessment identify any structural
samples. Everyirregularities
produced resulting
sample from po-
underwent
a meticulous visual to identify any structural irregularities resulting from
atential manufacturing
meticulous
potential manufacturingerrors.
visual assessment Consequently,
toConsequently,
errors. identify anynostructural
defects were
no defects identified
irregularities
were that would
resulting
identified that render
from
would po-
render
thethe
samples
tential samplesunsuitable
manufacturing forfor
continued
errors.
unsuitable utilization
Consequently,
continued inin
the
no defects
utilization study.
were
the identified that would render
study.
the samples unsuitable for continued utilization in the study.

Figure 3. Manufactured
Figure samples,
3. Manufactured series:
samples, P, P,
series: MP, SB,
MP, F,F,ST.
SB, ST.
Figure 3. Manufactured samples, series: P, MP, SB, F, ST.
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
Materials
Materials2023,
2023,16,
16,x 6132
FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 1919
7 of

3.3. Methodology of Bending Tests

Methodology
3.3.
3.3. Methodologyof of
Bending Tests
Bending Tests
Strength
Strength tests of the specimens were performed using the universal testing machine
Strengthteststestsofofthe
thespecimens
specimenswere wereperformed
performedusing
usingthe
theuniversal
universaltesting
testingmachine
machine
WDW-5D-HS.
WDW-5D-HS.The
WDW-5D-HS. ThePN-EN
The PN-ENISO
PN-EN ISO
ISO178
178 standard
178standard
standard for
forthree-point
forthree-point
three-pointbending
bending
bending tests
testswas
testswas used,
wasused, where
used,where
where
cubic specimens
cubicspecimens
cubic specimenswith with a ratio
withaaratio of height
ratioofofheight h to
heighthhto strut
tostrut spacing
strut spacing L of
spacing LL of L/h
of L/h =
L/h==1616 and
16and 64/4
and64/4 = 16 was
64/4= =1616 was
was
taken for
takenfor
taken the
forthe tests.
thetests. Figure
tests.Figure 4 shows
Figure4 4shows the
showsthe schematic
theschematic representation
schematicrepresentation of the
representationofofthe three-point
thethree-point test
three-pointtest of
test
ofof
fabricated standard
fabricatedstandard
fabricated samples
standardsamples [30].
samples[30].
[30].

Figure 4. Scheme of the three-point bending test: P—bending force, L—distance between supports,
Figure
Figure4.4.Scheme
Schemeofofthe
thethree-point
three-pointbending
bendingtest:
test:P—bending
P—bendingforce, L—distance
force, between
L—distance supports,
between supports,
h—sample height, based on [30].
h—sample height, based on
h—sample height, based on [30].[30].

Figure
Figure
Figure 55 shows
5shows
shows aa aphotograph
photograph
photograph of
ofofthethesample
the sampleduring
sample duringthe
during thebending
the bendingtest.
bending test.The
test. Theoperating
The operating
operating
mechanism
mechanism of the grips of the testing machine for the orthosis and its fragments wasfab-
mechanism of the
of grips
the gripsof the
of testing
the machine
testing for
machine the
fororthosis
the and
orthosis its
andfragments
its was
fragments was
fab-
ricated
ricated using
fabricated 3D
usingusing printing, and
3D printing,
3D printing, the main
andmain
and the criterion
the main of suitability
criterion
criterion of these
of suitability
of suitability was
of these
of these to
was to ensure
was the
to ensure
ensure the
stability
stability of
of the
the stability
theofselected sample
the selected
selected sample during
sample the
themeasurements.
during
during the measurements.
measurements.

Figure 5. Three-point bending of the sample—view of the working tooling of the testing machine,
bending
Figure of all types bending
5. Three-point of samples.
of the sample—view of the working tooling of the testing machine,
Figure 5. Three-point bending of the sample—view of the working tooling of the testing machine,
bending of all types of samples.
3.4. Methodology
bending of all types of
ofFinite Element Analysis
samples.
The Abaqus
3.4. Methodology 6.12,Element
ofofFinite Standard module (statics), was used for the simulation tests. To
Analysis
3.4. Methodology
obtain Finitein
correct results Element Analysishigher-order spatial finite elements with a central
the modeling,
The
The Abaqus 6.12,
6.12, Standard
Abaqusvertex Standard module
module (statics), waswas used for the
the simulation tests.
tests. To
node between nodes were used. (statics),
This is because used
with forfinite simulation
element meshes, To
dis-
obtain
obtain correct
correct results
results in the modeling,
incomputed
the modeling, higher-order
higher-order spatial
spatial finite
finite elements
elements with aa central
withcorrect
central
placement values are at each node, so the more nodes, the more the
node
node between
between
values vertex
Thenodes
vertex
obtained. resultswere
nodes of theused.
were used. This
This is
two finite is because
because
element with finite
finite element
with overlaid
meshes on themeshes,
element meshes, dis-
dis-
sample model
placement
placement values
were compared are
are computed
valueswith the at
at each
displacement
computed node,
each(Ui) so
so the
results
node, more
more nodes,
obtained
the from
nodes, the
the more
more correct
experimental
the correct the
tests.
theA
values
values obtained.
triangular element
obtained. The results
Thewith of
of the
10 nodes
results theontwo
thefinite
two element
finite element
(C3D10)
element meshes
was used
meshes overlaid on
on the
to apply
overlaid the sample
meshes.
sample
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

model were compared with the displacement (Ui) results obtained from the experimental
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 tests.
model A were
triangular element
compared withwith 10 nodes on the
the displacement (Ui)element
results (C3D10)
obtainedwasfromused to apply 8the
the experimentalof 19

meshes.
tests. A triangular element with 10 nodes on the element (C3D10) was used to apply the
The simulation model for the basic standard sample was created in the form of an
meshes.
assemblyThethat
The fully reproduced
simulation
simulation model forthe
modelfor theoperating
the basic elements
basicstandard
standard of the
sample
sample testing
was
was machine
created
created the(Figure
ininthe form 6).
formofofan
an
assembly that fully reproduced the operating elements of the testing machine
assembly that fully reproduced the operating elements of the testing machine (Figure 6). (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Simulation model of P series samples: 1—pressing element, 2—place of application, 3—

Figure
tested
Figuresample, Simulation
6.6.Simulation
4—base, model
of of
5—place
model Preceiving
series
Pofseries samples:
force.
samples: 1—pressing
1—pressing element,
element, 2—place
2—place of application,
of application, 3—
3—tested
tested sample,
sample, 4—base,
4—base, 5—place
5—place of receiving
of receiving force.
force.
To confirm the possibility of reducing computation time, the authors also applied
To confirm
confirm the possibility
possibilityof of reducing
reducing computation
computationtime, time,the
theauthors
authorsalso also applied
directToloading to the the base sample using forces and boundary conditions. The applied
results
direct loading to the base sample using forces and boundary conditions. The results
results
showed that thetodifference
direct loading the base between
sample the using results
forces obtained with indirect
and boundary loadingThe
conditions. using the
showed that the difference between the results obtained with indirect loading using the
working
showed elements and thosebetween
that the difference obtainedthe with directobtained
results loading was withless than 1%,
indirect loadingand using
the com-
the
workingelements
elementsand and those obtained with direct loading was less 1%,
thanand 1%,the
and the
putation
working time was reduced thosebyobtained
a factor of with3, from
direct 3 loading
min to 1was min.less
Forthan
the remaining speci-
com-
computation time was reduced by a factor of 3, from 3 min to 1 min. For the remaining
mens, the time
putation tester’s
wasworking
reducedelements
by a factor were not
of 3, modeled
from 3 min and were For
to 1 min. limited to applying
the remaining the
speci-
specimens, the tester’s working elements were not modeled and were limited to applying
appropriate forces and boundary conditions for the specimen (Figure 7). Modeling with
mens, the tester’s working elements were not modeled and were limited to applying the
the appropriate forces and boundary conditions forspecimen
the specimen (Figure 7). Modeling
work elements requires the use of contact surfaces, which significantly increases compu-
appropriate forces and boundary conditions for the (Figure 7). Modeling with
with elements
work elements requires
usethe use of contact
surfaces,surfaces, which significantly increases
tation
work time compared requires tothe
applying static loading
of contact to the specimen
which significantly by increases
applyingcompu-
forces
computation time compared to applying static loading to the specimen by applying forces
through stationary
tation time compared manipulation
to applying of the work
static tool or
loading to the
theassembly
specimentable (holder) of
by applying the
forces
through stationary manipulation of the work tool or the assembly table (holder) of the
testing
through machine.
stationaryCalculation time
manipulation is
ofimportant
the work in toolterms
or theof its potential
assembly
testing machine. Calculation time is important in terms of its potential use in production use
table in production
(holder) of the
systems
systemsfor forproduct
testing machine.
productmass
masscustomization.
Calculation time is important in terms of its potential use in production
customization.
systems for product mass customization.

Figure 7. Boundary conditions and loading method for standard test sample (P), central part of the
brace
Figure (MP),
Figure orthosis-shaped
7.7.Boundary
Boundaryconditionssample
and
conditions (F),
method
and andoforthotic-shaped
loading loadingfor
method sample
thestandard
sample. testconsisting of central
sample (P), a lowerpart
shellof the
and upper shell (SB-ST).
brace (MP), orthosis-shaped sample (F), and orthotic-shaped sample consisting of a lower shell and
A diagram
upper of a finite element mesh fragment of the orthotic model that accurately
shell (SB-ST).
A diagram of a finite element mesh fragment of the orthotic model that accurately
reflects the shape of the curvature of the orthotic is shown in Figure 8. The mesh parame-
reflects the shape of athe curvature of mesh
the orthotic is shown
of thein Figure model
8. The mesh parame-
ters forAall types ofofsamples
diagram finite are shown
element in Table 2.
fragment orthotic that accurately
ters for all
reflects thetypes
shapeofofsamples are shown
the curvature of theinorthotic
Table 2.is shown in Figure 8. The mesh parameters
for all types of samples are shown in Table 2.
 Materials
Materials 16,16,
2023,
2023, 6132PEER REVIEW
x FOR 9 of9 19
of 19
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

Figure
Figure 8. Finite
8. Finite element
element meshmesh superimposed
superimposed on on
thethe
testtest specimen
specimen in the
in the shape
shape of the
of the entire
entire orthosis
orthosis
Figure
of high
of 8. Finite complexity
geometric
high geometricelement mesh
complexity superimposed
(partial
(partial view). on the test specimen in the shape of the entire orthosis
view).
of high geometric complexity (partial view).
Table
Table2. Parameters
2. Parametersof the applied
of the finite
applied element
finite mesh
element mesh ononthethe
testtest
samples.
samples.
Table 2. Parameters of the applied finite element mesh on the test samples.
Series Designation Shape of Element Type Global Size Amount of Nodes Amount of Elements
Series Designation Shape of Element Type Global Size Amount of Nodes Amount of Elements
SeriesPDesignation Shape of Element
Triangular Type
C3D10 Global
1 mm Size Amount42,517of Nodes Amount of Elements
27,456
MP P P Triangular
Triangular
Triangular C3D10
C3D10 11mm 1 mm
mm 42,517 42,517
158,610 27,456
27,456
102,752
MP
F, SB-STMP Triangular
Triangular
Triangular C3D10
C3D10
C3D10 11mm 1 mm
mm 158,610
158,610
856,431 102,752
102,752
561,274
F,F,SB-ST
SB-ST Triangular
Triangular C3D10
C3D10 1 mm 1 mm 856,431
856,431 561,274
561,274
For ease of computation, all types of samples were given the same Young’s modulus
For
E = 1000For MPaease
and
ease of Poisson
of computation,
number
computation, all=types
all types of samples
0.38. of samples were
were given
given the
the same
same Young’s
Young’s modulus
modulus
E = 1000 MPa and Poisson number
E = 1000 MPa and Poisson number = 0.38. = 0.38.
4. Results
ResultsTest Results
4.1.4.Bending
4.1. Bending Test
4.1.Figure
Bending Test Results
Results
9 shows the obtained average mass values of primary samples ordered ac-
Figure
cordingFigure 9 shows
showsthe theobtained
to their9orientation obtained
in average
average
the working mass values
mass
chamber. of 10
values
Figure primary
of shows samples
primary ordered
thesamples
obtained accord-
ordered
average ac-
ing to
cording their
to orientation
their in the
orientation working
in the chamber.
working Figure
chamber. 10 shows
Figure 10 the
showsobtained
mass values of samples with complex geometry, with samples ordered according to ori-the average
obtained mass
average
values
entation of samples
mass values
in the of with chamber.
samples
working complex geometry,
with complex 11with
Figuregeometry, samples
shows ordered average
withobtained
the samples according to orientation
ordereddensity
according in
to ori-
values,
the working
entation chamber.
in ordered
the working Figure 11
chamber. shows the
Figure obtained average
11 shows the density values, with samples
obtained average density values,
with samples according to the manufacturing process.
ordered according
with samples to the
ordered manufacturing
according process.
to the manufacturing process.

Figure 9. The obtained average mass values of the primary samples, samples ordered according to
Figure 9.
9.in
orientation
Figure The obtained
theobtained
The average
workingaverage mass values
chamber.
mass values of
of the
the primary
primary samples,
samples, samples
samples ordered
ordered according
according to
to
orientation in the working chamber.
orientation in the working chamber.
Materials 2023,
Materials 16, x
2023, 16, 6132
FOR PEER REVIEW 1010of
of 19
19
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

Figure 10. Obtained average mass values of samples with complex geometry, samples ordered ac-
Figure 10. Obtained average mass values of samples with complex geometry, samples ordered
Figure 10.
cording Obtained average
to orientation mass values
in the working of samples with complex geometry, samples ordered ac-
chamber.
according
cording totoorientation
orientationininthe
theworking
workingchamber.
chamber.

Figure 11. Obtained average density values, samples ordered according to the manufacturing pro-
Figure11.
cess.
Figure 11.Obtained
Obtainedaverage
averagedensity
density values,
values, samples
samples ordered
ordered according
according to manufacturing
to the the manufacturing pro-
process.
cess.
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 11 of 19

4.2. Bending Test Results

4.2.Bending
4.2. BendingTest
TestResults
Results
Experimental flexural testing of the manufactured specimens allowed us to obtain
forceExperimental
Experimentalflexural
(P)–displacement (Ui)testing
flexural testingof
graphs ofthe
for themanufactured
the manufactured specimens
specimens
individual specimens in allowed
allowed
the us to
toobtain
usFigure
series. obtain
12
force (P)–displacement
force (P)–displacement
shows (Ui) graphs
(Ui)ofgraphs
a schematic diagram for the individual
forsample
the basic the individual specimens
series. in the series. Figure12
specimens
P_a in the in the series. Figure 12
shows
showsaaschematic
schematicdiagram
diagramof ofthe
thebasic
basicsample
sampleP_a
P_ain
inthe
theseries.
series.

Figure 12. Force–displacement relationship diagram for samples from the P_a series.
Figure12.
Figure Force–displacementrelationship
12.Force–displacement relationshipdiagram
diagramfor
forsamples
samplesfrom
fromthe
theP_a
P_aseries.
series.

The
Theaverage
averagevalues
valuesof displacement
displacementfor
forall
allsamples
samplesare
areshown
shownin Figures
Figures13–15
13–15in
inthe
form The
of average
force values ofofdisplacement
(P)–displacement (Ui) for
diagrams.all samples are shown ininFigures 13–15 in the
the
form of force (P)–displacement (Ui) diagrams.
form of force (P)–displacement (Ui) diagrams.

Figure 13. Force (P)–displacement (Ui) dependence from average values for basic samples.
Figure 13. Force (P)–displacement (Ui) dependence from average values for basic samples.
Figure 13. Force (P)–displacement (Ui) dependence from average values for basic samples.
Materials 2023,
Materials 2023, 16, xx FOR
FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of
of 19
Materials 2023,16,
16, 6132 PEER REVIEW 12 12 of1919

Figure 14.
Figure14.
Figure Force (P)–displacement
Force(P)–displacement
14.Force (Ui)
(P)–displacement(Ui) dependence
(Ui)dependence from
dependencefrom average
fromaverage values
averagevalues for
valuesfor samples
forsamples in
samplesin the
inthe shape
theshape of
shapeof
of
the middle
themiddle
the part
middlepart of the
partofofthe orthosis.
theorthosis.
orthosis.

Figure15.
Figure Force(P)–displacement
15.Force (P)–displacement(Ui)
(Ui)dependence
dependencefrom
fromaverage
averagevalues
valuesfor
forsamples
samplesin
inthe
theshape
shapeof
of
Figure 15. Force (P)–displacement (Ui) dependence from average values for samples in the shape of
the entire
the entire orthosis.
entire orthosis.
orthosis.
the
Analyzingthe
Analyzing theobtained
obtainedfigures
figureswith
withaveraged
averagedvalues
values(Figures
(Figures13–15),
13–15),ititshould
shouldbebe
noted Analyzing
that thelinearity
perfect obtained is figures
not with due
obtained averaged
to the values
internal (Figures 13–15),
structure of the it should be
thermoplastic,
noted that
noted that perfect
perfect linearity
linearity is
is not
not obtained
obtained due
due to the
the internal
internal structure
structure of
of the
the thermo-
thermo-
i.e., the overlapping of the individual layers of thetothermoplastic. The approximate linearity
plastic, i.e.,
plastic, i.e., the
the overlapping
overlapping of of the
the individual
individual layers
layers of
of the
the thermoplastic.
thermoplastic. The
The approximate
approximate
obtained must be combined with temperature variations associated with the position of
linearity obtained
linearity obtained must
must bebe combined
combined with
with temperature
temperature variations
variations associated
associated with
with the
the nozzle applying the material and variable heat dissipation conditions that affectthe
the
bonding forces at the boundaries between the layers and the path.
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 Materials 2023,
Materials 2023, 16,
16, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 13 13
of of
13 1920
of 20

position of
position of the
the nozzle
nozzle applying
applying the
the material
material and
and variable
variable heat
heat dissipation
dissipation conditions
conditions that
that
4.3. Finite Element Analysis affect
Results
affect the
the bonding
bonding forces
forces at
at the
the boundaries
boundaries between
between the
the layers
layers and
and the
the path.
path.

A comparison of vertical
4.3. displacement
4.3. Finite
Finite Analysisvalues
Element Analysis
Element Results obtained from simulation tests using
Results
the FEM method (Ui = U2 = Uy) A is shownof
A comparison
comparison ofin Table
vertical
vertical 3.
displacement
displacement values obtained
values obtained from
from simulation
simulation tests
tests using
using
the FEM
the FEM method
method (Ui
(Ui == U2
U2 == Uy)
Uy) is
is shown
shown in
in Table
Table 3.
3.

Table 3. U2 vertical displacement

Table for
Table 3. U2all
3. U2 sample
vertical
vertical series.for
displacement
displacement for all
all sample
sample series.
series.

Force Value
Force Value pp
Force
SeriesValue p
<break/>Displacement Result as
Series Series <break/>Displacement asasaaa Colorful
Result
Result Colorful Map
Colorful Map
Map
Displacement Ui Ui Ui

PP == 10
PPP= 10 [N] 10 [N]<break/>Ui
[N]<break/>Ui ==
P 1.028 [mm]
Ui = 1.028 [mm]1.028 [mm]

PMP
= 100 [N]
P == 100
P 100 [N]<break/>Ui
[N]<break/>Ui
MP MP
Ui = 0.634 [mm] == 0.634
0.634 [mm]
[mm]

P = 100 [N]
P = 100 [N]<break/>Ui
F, SB-ST F, SB-ST P = 100 [N]<break/>Ui
UiF,=SB-ST
0.320 [mm] == 0.320
0.320 [mm]
[mm]

The values
The values of
of displacement
displacement Ui
Ui shown
shown in
in Table
Table 33 are
are for
for reference
reference only
only and
and were
were used
used
to determine to determine the actual modulus values.
the actualinmodulus
The values of displacement Ui shown Tablevalues.
3 are for reference only and were used
to determine the actual modulus
4.4. values.
Elastic Modulus of Samples
4.4. Elastic Modulus of Samples

4.4. Elastic Modulus of Samples

Figure 16 presents the obtained values of the modulus of elasticity for all types
of samples. The values were determined on the basis of the results obtained on real
objects during three-point bending and the values of displacements obtained by simulation,
substituted in Equation (1).
Materials 2023,
Materials 16, x6132
2023, 16, FOR PEER REVIEW 1414of
of 19
19

Figure 16. The obtained values of the modulus of elasticity.

Figure 16. The obtained values of the modulus of elasticity.

4.5.Result
4.5. ResultComparison
Comparison
Comparable
Comparable values
values for
for density,
density, modulus
modulus of
of elasticity,
elasticity, force,
force, and
and displacement
displacement are
are
tabulated below (Table 4).
tabulated below (Table 4).
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 15 of 19

Table 4. Cumulative results of the maximum values obtained for a given series of samples.

The Maximum Force Displacement Value

Obtained E Modulus
Series Designation Density [g/cm3 ] Obtained from the from Maximum Force
[MP]
Average P [N] Ui [mm]
P_a_1_235_40_03 0.780 1470.7 78.04 8.25
P_a_2_235_85_03 0.639 812.0 36.00 6.31
P_a_3_250_40_03 0.785 1402.5 72.16 7.79
P_a_4_250_85_03 0.736 1286.6 63.96 7.59
P_b_1_235_40_03 0.808 1624.0 103.16 7.39
P_b_2_235_85_03 0.613 1064.2 41.56 5.11
P_b_3_250_40_03 0.818 1626.6 104.76 7.35
P_b_4_250_85_03 0.781 1541.2 98.32 7.29
P_c_1_235_40_03 0.787 1404.4 68.44 5.42
P_c_2_235_85_03 0.707 1235.6 51.80 4.69
P_c_3_250_40_03 0.798 1543.5 61.60 4.24
P_c_4_250_85_03 0.745 1235.6 35.00 3.06
MP_a_1_235_40_03 0.758 907.0 394.20 4.80
MP_a_2_235_85_03 0.618 514.6 247.40 4.83
MP_a_3_250_40_03 0.751 895.5 374.60 3.86
MP_a_4_250_85_03 0.715 761.1 330.87 3.66
MP_b_1_235_40_03 0.753 907.0 337.00 3.73
MP_b_2_235_85_03 0.659 576.9 241.133 3.83
MP_b_3_250_40_03 0.734 787.6 318.27 3.46
MP_b_4_250_85_03 0.698 634.6 270.4 3.57
F_1_235_40_03 0.786 404.6 829.40 10.68
F_2_235_85_03 0.737 265.1 882.50 10.95
F_3_250_40_03 0.777 384.6 585.60 8.94
F_4_250_85_03 0.794 384.2 932.60 11.79
SB-ST_1_235_40_03 0.862 197.2 649.10 17.79
SB-ST_2_235_85_03 0.772 113.1 605.20 22.09
SB-ST_3_250_40_03 0.906 226.3 741.30 17.45
SB-ST_4_250_85_03 0.756 114.7 588.00 22.64

Sample SB-ST_3_250_40_03 with low speed and higher temperature shows better
results, and thus we obtain better mechanical properties, which results in the highest
strength. The same was obtained for samples of the same orientation in a working chamber
of a different shape (series of samples Pa, Pb, MP_a).

5. Discussion
5.1. Effect of Printing Parameter Variations in Weight and Density
Different combinations of temperature and printing speed were used to 3D print all the
samples. The standard bending samples were printed in three orientations, while samples
in the shape of the central part of the orthosis (MP) was printed in two orientations, zero
and 90 degrees. The WHO was printed in the full 90-degree orientation (F), and two split
sections, SB and ST, of the WHO were printed in the zero-degree orientation. The weight
and density of the printed objects were examined.
The observations recorded in Figures 9–11 indicated that higher weight and density
were associated with higher extrusion temperatures. Increased temperature improved the
material’s flowability, resulting in more material being extruded and deposited, leading to
higher weight and density. Conversely, it was found that weight and density decreased
with increasing extrusion speed. Higher speeds caused the nozzle to move faster between
locations, resulting in inadequate material extrusion at certain points. However, at a speed
of 40 mm/s, there was enough time for proper material deposition on the print bed. When
considering all the variations together, it was concluded that at an extrusion speed of
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 16 of 19

40 mm/s, temperature variations had a minimal impact on the density and weight of the
printed products. However, at a speed of 85 mm/s, the influence of high temperature
became more noticeable. At high temperatures, the weight was approximately comparable
to that of products printed at 40 mm/s, while the weight was significantly lower at a
temperature of 235 ◦ C. This confirms the assertion that higher temperature and extrusion
result in increased weight, as supported by density and weight measurements.
A slight discrepancy was observed in the printed SB and ST samples (Figures 10 and 11).
At a speed of 40 mm/s, there was a noticeable difference in weight due to temperature
variation. However, at 85 mm/s, the weight difference was almost the same regardless
of temperature variation. This could be attributed to the zero-degree printing orientation
and the extensive nozzle movement. At 40 mm/s, the slower nozzle movement allowed
enough time for the deposited material to solidify properly, preventing intermixing or
overlapping as specified by the slicing instructions. Therefore, higher weight was achieved
at higher temperatures due to improved flowability. Conversely, at 85 mm/s, the lack of
weight difference can be attributed to the shorter nozzle movement time between locations,
which was insufficient for the proper solidification of previously deposited materials. These
results demonstrate an inverse relationship compared to previous samples with smaller
build areas.

5.2. Effect of Printing Parameter Variations on Strength

All samples showed similar load-bearing capabilities when printed at a speed of 40 mm/s,
regardless of the extrusion temperatures of 250 ◦ C and 235 ◦ C shown in Figures 13–15. How-
ever, at a speed of 85 mm/s, there was a notable difference in strength. Samples printed
at 250 ◦ C exhibited higher strength, while those printed at 235 ◦ C had significantly lower
strength. These findings suggest that a 40 mm/s extrusion speed is more effective for
producing parts with good load-bearing capabilities. On the other hand, 85 mm/s is not
as effective, except when combined with higher extrusion temperatures (250 ◦ C), which
yielded comparable strength to samples printed at 40 mm/s. One exception was observed
in the printed SB-ST samples (Figure 15), which consist of a phantom inside and split parts
of the WHO. The strength of samples printed at 85 mm/s was lower than those printed at
40 mm/s, and both were nearly equal.
Fracture stages were observed in various samples, including P_c, MP_a, MP_b, F,
and SB-ST (Figures 13–15). In the standard bending samples of P_c, the fracture stages
occurred due to the vertical printing orientation (90 degrees with respect to the bed),
which weakened the layer joinings parallel to the loading arm of bending. Fracture stages
represented multiple fractures occurring at different layer joinings. In contrast, samples P_a
and P_b had vertical and horizontal layer placements, resulting in perpendicular joinings to
the loading arm, thus exhibiting higher strength and no stages in between. Similar fracture
stages were observed in the MP samples, with shallower stages in MP_a and deeper stages
in MP_b, indicating multiple fractures. The steeper stages in MP_b were due to the vertical
upward printing orientation, resulting in 0.3 mm layers perpendicular to the loading arm
compared to MP_a, which had whole-area layers facing the bending roller. In the vertically
printed WHO samples at 40 mm/s extrusion speed, two fracture stages were observed,
with the sample printed at 250 ◦ C experiencing a delayed first fracture compared to the
sample printed at 235 ◦ C. This delay could be attributed to the higher temperature, leading
to better deposition, proper overlapping, and adequate adhesion between layers.
In the testing results of SB-ST, three fracture stages were visible in samples printed
at 40 mm/s, while no multiple stages were observed in samples printed at 85 mm/s.
Insufficient material deposition and the presence of pores between layers at 85 mm/s
weakened the entire sample, resulting in consistent weak strength throughout, similar to
the weak corners of the printed honeycomb feature. Among the standard bending samples,
P_b exhibited the highest load-bearing capability compared to P_a and P_c. This outcome
was influenced by the printing orientation, as the vertical upward orientation weakened
P_c due to weaker layer joinings parallel to the loading arm. Layer joinings and adhesion
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 17 of 19

are generally weaker sections in additive manufacturing samples, leading to abrupt failure
and reduced strength.
MP_a demonstrated higher strength and load-bearing capabilities up to greater dis-
placement due to its selected printing orientation with the whole-area layer facing the
bending roller. This success inspired the printing of the WHO parallel to the bed, resulting
in the printing of split sections SB and ST. The vertically printed WHO without splits (F)
did not allow for the insertion of a phantom during testing. SB-ST, which is the WHO
tested with a phantom inside, exhibited three different fracture stages. The hand phantom
consisted of an outer elastic layer imitating soft tissues, skin and muscles, and a hard
core imitating bone. Both F and SB-ST were tested for bending, and F demonstrated good
strength even without any support or phantom inside. This could be attributed to its
single-run manufacturing. However, the presence of gaps between split sections, between
the shell of SB and ST, and the phantom led to a decrease in strength. Nevertheless, the
results up to the first fracture stage of SB-ST were nearly equal to those of F. The support
provided by the phantom during SB-ST testing resulted in higher displacement extensions
compared to the F samples. Overall, the split WHO is recommended for its utility, ease of
fixing and replacing, and higher extensional displacement capabilities.
The elastic modulus measures a material’s stiffness, which directly impacts its strength.
A higher modulus indicates less elastic deformation, signifying higher stiffness. Among the
standard bending samples, P_b exhibited the highest elastic modulus (Figure 16). Notably,
the P_c samples printed at 235 ◦ C and 85 mm/s showed higher modulus values than the
other two samples printed under the same parameters. Additionally, the P_c samples
printed at 250 ◦ C and 40 mm/s exhibited higher strength than the P_a samples printed
under the same parameters. In the MP samples, MP_a had a higher modulus for samples
printed at 250 ◦ C, while MP_b had a higher modulus for samples printed at 235 ◦ C and
85 mm/s. When printed at 235 ◦ C and 40 mm/s, both MP samples had almost equal
modulus values. Comparatively, the F sample had higher modulus values than SB-ST,
indicating higher stiffness. The modulus of SB-ST was approximately half that of F.

6. Conclusions
The most significant factor influencing the enhancement of strength properties is the
extrusion speed. A lower extrusion speed ensures precise replication of object contours,
preventing the formation of weakening voids. The tested speeds were 40 [mm/s] and
85 [mm/s].
In comparison, temperature’s impact on object strength during the manufacturing
process is relatively less pronounced. Results at temperatures of 235 ◦ C and 250 ◦ C do
not distinctly establish whether higher temperatures correlate with improved strength.
The temperature range of 220 to 250 ◦ C aligns with the manufacturer’s recommendations
for used filament. Combinations utilizing an extrusion speed of 40 [mm/s] yielded the
most favorable outcomes with both variants of opted temperatures (235 and 250 ◦ C).
A well-optimized selection of process parameters ensures the product attains suitable
properties. This approach is employed for evaluating the mechanical attributes of WHOs.
The study’s findings underscore that the proposed method is viable for assessing the
strength of personalized orthotics during design, considering printing parameters such as
extrusion speed, temperature, and orientation.
The computational time required for these numerical calculations using a dedicated
unit is just a fraction of the actual production time. Moreover, precise customization of prod-
uct geometry for each patient might lead to reduced manufacturing time, as it eliminates
the need for excess material extrusion. Essentially, incorporating numerical calculations
could expedite the delivery of personalized orthotics to patients. Consequently, exploring
the integration of a numerical simulation module into the product mass customization
system is a justifiable avenue for further investigation.
As the incremental manufacturing process with MEX 3D printing hinges on numerous
variables, additional research is warranted to expand the simulation library with fresh
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 18 of 19

material data. Further, it is advisable to validate simulations for alternative thermoplastic

materials and for the entire orthosis geometry using real models.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.Ł.; Methodology, K.Ł.; Validation, R.R. and A.K.; Formal
analysis, K.Ł., R.R. and A.K.; Investigation, K.Ł.; Writing—original draft, K.Ł.; Writing—review &
editing, R.R. and A.K.; Project administration, K.Ł. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research was carried out as part of the research project “Assessment of the strength of
individualized wrist hand orthoses manufactured using the FDM technique”, awarded to Krzysztof
Łukaszewski by the Poznan University of Technology under the Research Subsidy for Young Scien-
tists–SBAD2019, reference number 02/23/SBAD/8726 and continued under research project number
0613/SBAD/4770, financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
Institutional Review Board Statement: It did not involve intervention work on human subjects.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Łukaszewski, K.; Wichniarek, R.; Górski, F. Determination of the Elasticity Modulus of Additively Manufactured Wrist Hand
Orthoses. Materials 2020, 13, 4379. [CrossRef]
2. Raj, R.; Dixit, A.R.; Łukaszewski, K.; Wichniarek, R.; Rybarczyk, J.; Kuczko, W.; Górski, F. Numerical and Experimental Mechanical
Analysis of Additively Manufactured Ankle–Foot Orthoses. Materials 2022, 15, 6130. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Štefanovič, B.; Danko, M.; Michalíková, M.; Bednarčíková, L.; Rajt’úková, V.; Tóth, T.; Trebuňová, M.; Hudák, R.; Živčák, J.
Orthoses Development Using Modern Technologies. In Prosthetics and Orthotics; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [CrossRef]
4. Liu, Z.; Zhang, P.; Yan, M.; Xie, Y.; Huang, G. Additive manufacturing of specific ankle-foot orthoses for persons after stroke: A
preliminary study based on gait analysis data. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2019, 16, 8134–8143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Sakib-Uz-Zaman, C.; Khondoker, M.A.H. Polymer-Based Additive Manufacturing for Orthotic and Prosthetic Devices: Industry
Outlook in Canada. Polymers 2023, 15, 1506. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Wojciechowski, E.; Chang, A.Y.; Balassone, D.; Ford, J.; Cheng, T.L.; Little, D.; Menezes, M.P.; Hogan, S.; Burns, J. Feasibility of
designing, manufacturing and delivering 3D printed ankle-foot orthoses: A systematic review. J. Foot Ankle Res. 2019, 12, 11.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Available online: https://get3d.pl/2020/05/13/jak-drukowac-z-petg/ (accessed on 21 August 2023).
8. ISO-ISO/ASTM 52900:2021(E); Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Fundamentals and Vocabulary. ISO/ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2022.
9. Banaszewski, J.; Pabiszczak, M.; Pastusiak, T.; Buczkowska, A.; Kuczko, W.; Wichniarek, R.; Górski, F. 3D printed models in
mandibular reconstruction with bony free flaps. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2018, 29, 23.
10. Shilo, D.; Emodi, O.; Blanc, O.; Noy, D.; Rachmiel, A. Printing the Future-Updates in 3D Printing for Surgical Applications.
Rambam Maimonides Med. J. 2018, 9, e0020. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Evill, J. Cortex. Available online: https://www.evilldesign.com/cortex (accessed on 7 January 2023).
12. Gorski, F.; Wichniarek, R.; Kuczko, W.; Hamrol, A. Selection of Fused Deposition Modeling Process Parameters Using Finite
Element Analysis and Genetic Algorithms. J. Mult.-Valued Log. Soft Comput. 2019, 32, 293–311.
13. Novakova-Marcincinova, L.; Novak-Marcincin, J.; Barna, J.; Torok, J. Special materials used in FDM rapid prototyping technology
ap-plication. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 16th International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES), Lisbon,
Portugal, 13–15 June 2012; pp. 73–76.
14. Stano, G.; Ovy, S.M.A.I.; Edwards, J.R.; Cianchetti, M.; Percoco, G.; Tadesse, Y. One-shot additive manufacturing of robotic finger
with embedded sensing and actuation. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 124, 467–485. [CrossRef]
15. Sepulveda-Navarrete, D.A.; Gutierrez, P.S.; Lopes, A.; Rome, J.I.; Goyal, V.K.; Espalin, D. Ultrasonically embedded wires in
multi-material parts produced by hybrid additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2023, 73, 103662. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, T.M.; Xi, J.-T.; Jin, Y. A model research for prototype warp deformation in the FDM process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
2007, 33, 1087–1096. [CrossRef]
17. Pilipovi, A.; Raos, P.; Šercer, M. Experimental analysis of properties of materials for rapid prototyping. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
2009, 40, 105–115. [CrossRef]
18. Abaqus, version 6.12. Analysis User’s Manual Volume IV: Elements. Dassault Systèmes: Johnston, RI, USA, 2012.
19. Aguilar-Martín, J.J.; Yagüe-Fabra, J.A.; Martínez, J.; Diéguez, J.L.; Ares, E.; Pereira, A.; Pérez, J.A. Comparative between FEM
Models for FDM Parts and their Approach to a Real Mechanical Behaviour. Procedia Eng. 2013, 63, 878–884.
Materials 2023, 16, 6132 19 of 19

20. Górski, F.; Kuczko, W.; Weiss, W.; Wichniarek, R.; Żukowska, M. Prototyping of an Individualized Multi-Material Wrist Orthosis
Using Fused Deposition Modelling. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2019, 13, 39–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Kuznetsov, V.; Solonin, A.; Tavitov, A.; Urzhumtsev, O.; Vakulik, A. Increasing strength of FFF three-dimensional printed parts by
influencing on temperature-related parameters of the process. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2019, 26, 107–121. [CrossRef]
22. Srilakshmi, C.; Rao, G.S.; Kumar, J.S. A Review on Damage Modelling and Analysis of Composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021,
1185, 012021. [CrossRef]
23. Cazon, A.; Kelly, S.; Paterson, A.M.; Bibb, R.J.; Campbell, R.I. Analysis and comparison of wristsplint designs using the finite
element method: Multi-material three-dimensionalprinting compared to typical existing practice with thermoplastics. Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 2017, 231, 881–897. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Marques, M.A.; Mendes, E.; Ramos, N.V.; Pinto, V.C.; Vaz, M.A. Finite-element analysis of ankle-foot orthosis to predict fracture
conditions during gait. In Proceedings of the 1st ICH Gaia-Porto, Porto, Portugal, 1 January 2010.
25. Chen, R.K.; Chen, L.; Tai, B.L.; Wang, Y.; Shih, A.J.; Wensman, J. Additive Manufacturing of Personalized Ankle-Foot Orthosis. In
Proceedings of the Transactions of the North American Manufacturing Research Institution of SME (NAMRC42), Detroit, MI,
USA, 9–13 June 2014; Volume 42.
26. Hendricks, A.; Nevin, S.; Wikoff, C.; Dougherty, M.; Orlita, J.; Noorani, R. The Low-Cost Design and 3D Printing of Structural
Knee Orthotics for Athletic Knee Injury Patients. Int. J. Biomed. Biol. Eng. 2018, 12, 445–451.
27. Cerda-Avila, S.N.; Medellín-Castillo, H.I.; de Lange, D.F. Analysis and Numerical Simulation of the Structural Performance of
Fused Deposition Modeling Samples with Variable Infill Values. ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 2019, 141, 021005. [CrossRef]
28. Li, J.; Tanaka, H. Rapid customization system for 3D-printedsplint using programmable modelling technique—A practical
approach. 3D Print. Med. 2018, 4, 5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Available online: https://sklep.rosa3d.pl/product/filament-pet-g-standard-175-mm-blue-sky-08kg/ (accessed on 21 August 2023).
30. ISO 178:2019; Plastics—Determination of Flexural Properties. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

View publication stats