RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012

www.PosterPresentations.com

• The next step in the process was to print the test specimens

on a Makerbot Thing-O-Matic

• To ensure equivalent experimental conditions, specimens

were printed in tandem. The control specimens were

printed at 210°C with 100% infill using straight lines

alternating 90° each layer to ensure as complete a fill as

possible.

• Tensile specimens were printed at 220°C, 230°C, and 260°C,

while holding all other variables constant.

• The specimens were taken to Carpenter Technology

Corporation, Reading PA, and pulled on a Tinius Olsen H50KS

tensile tester to determine the ultimate tensile strength

(UTS) of each piece.

• Results for UTS vs. deposition temperature were analyzed,

using the average value between each pair of specimens.

Charles Hull created the 3-D printing system in 1984. The idea was

to allow a user to create and test a 3-D model before investing into a

full scale project. Initially the systems created by Hull’s company

would print layer by layer using a UV laser to solidify photopolymers.

By the late 1990’s engineered organs were created by using a 3-D

printer to create the scaffolding for the structure, and in 2002 the

first working 3-D kidney was created. This breakthrough led to

research at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine with the

intent of printing organs and tissues with 3-D printing technology.

This research would lead to the first fully 3-D printed prosthetic leg

to be created and utilized in 2008; all parts including knee, foot,

socket, etc. were created as one unit with no assembly required. In

2009 Makerbot industries created an open-source hardware company

with the intent of selling DIY kits for 3-D printing. This opened the

amateur market to 3-D printing. In 2009 the first blood vessel was

created using a bioprinter, and in 2012 the first 3-D printed

prosthetic jaw was implanted on an 83-year old woman. This

innovation has spurred new research into the possibilities of using the

3-D printing technology to promote bone tissue growth. The

possibilities for the future of 3-D printing are endless; everything

from constructing firearms, building homes, or recreating evidence

for police investigations. There is even a car being created by

RedEye On Demand, a US based manufacturer, that will be comprised

of only 40 3-D printed thermoplastic parts.

Importance of Research

Additive manufacturing, as mentioned by President Obama in his

State of the Union Address, is an emerging technology that is being

utilized by research scientists and at-home experimenters alike. In

order to fully capitalize on this powerful technology. a detailed

understanding of the mechanical properties of the products must be

evaluated. This project directly addresses that need.

Introduction: a Brief History of 3-D Printing

Specimen Width(in)

Thickness(in)

Cross Area(in2)

Gauge Length

(in)

Fillet Radius

(in)

Overall Length

(in)

ASTM-Standard

.5 .25 .125 2 .25 8

Utilized .5 .25 .125 1.75 .25 3.75

Abstract

The first step was to determine the specimen dimensions to be used

as the standard for the experiment. As a starting point the ASTM

(American Society of Testing and Materials) provides standards for

flat test specimens as shown in the chart below. However, the

capabilities of the Makerbot Thing-O-Matic limits the dimensions to a

3.9375” cube. Therefore 6 specimens of varying dimensions were

produced and tested to provide a range of initial results to examine,

and the optimal specimen geometry relative to the ASTM standard

and ultimate tensile strength was chosen.

Procedure

• The variation of UTS with infill structure was then investigated.

• The tested specimens were printed on the same 3-D printer,

holding the temperature constant at 210°C.

• Specimens were printed with infill structure consisting of hollow,

circular, rectangular, and hexagonal patterns, with infill density

held constant at 30%.

• The following are photos of the internal structure of specimens

printed with rectangular and circular infill patterns.

• The control specimens were printed at 210°C with 100% infill,

using straight lines alternating 90° each layer to ensure as

complete a fill as possible.

• The specimens were again taken to Carpenter Technology

Corporation and pulled on a tensile tester.

• The following is a chart and table displaying the results from each

of the tests. The average value between the pair of specimens

was used.

Analysis

• Analysis of the UTS results of both deposition temperature and

infill geometry revealed a linear relationship between UTS and

mass, as indicated by a trendline with the equation y=.3637x. This

means that for each gram increase of mass this structure should

gain approximately .37 ksi of ultimate tensile strength.

Conclusion

References

• A clear relationship exists between the deposition temperature

and UTS. As the deposition temperature increased, a decrease in

the ultimate tensile strength was observed.

• The relationship between the infill structure and UTS was less

obvious. The hollow infill geometry resulted in the lowest

strength. While the circular and rectangular infill resulted in

nearly identical UTS values, the specimen with rectangular infill

utilized less material, resulting in a higher specific strength.

• Another interesting observation is that while holding all other

variables constant, the mass increased as deposition temperature

increased. A possible explanation is that the ABS plastic was able

to flow easier at a higher temperature, resulting in improved fill.

• What can be taken away from this experiment is that

3-D printing onto ABS plastic yields a higher UTS value at a lower

deposition temperature. Varying infill pattern will save money on

product, but will sacrifice the strength of the model.

Future ResearchThe results of the experiment indicate a direct relationship between

mechanical properties, infill solidity and temperature. Investigating

various source materials, and a wider temperature range will expand

the property database and allow researches to more effectively

manufacture products using 3D printing.

Evans, Hugh. "3D Printing: The Game Changer." T. Rowe Price.

N.p., May 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2013. Retrieved from:

http://individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/Planning-&-

Research/Connections/3D-Printing/The-Game-Changer

Chalcraft, Emilie. "Road-Ready 3D Car on the Way." Deezen.com.

Deezen Magazine, 7 Mar. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2013. Retrieved

from: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/07/road-ready-3d-printed-

car-on-the-way/

An investigation of the effects of deposition temperature and infill

density on tensile properties of 3-D printed Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-

Styrene (ABS) plastic models was performed. 3-D printing is an

additive process of making a solid object of virtually any shape from

a digital model. It has become an increasingly popular research and

production tool, however little is known about the properties of the

resulting objects. In this project, a Makerbot Thing-O-Matic and ABS

plastic were used to print test specimens. The temperature and

density were varied separately, and the tensile properties were

evaluated. Initial results yielded information on print quality and

tensile property variations, as well as important information

regarding failure modes. The results can be used to better

understand the limits of 3-D printing.

Temp.(°C)

UTS(ksi)

210 5.03

220 4.89

230 4.78

260 4.67

Shape UTS(ksi)

Lines 5.03

Circle 3.51

Rec. 3.45

Hex. 3.27

Hollow 2.83

Specimen Mass (g) UTS (ksi)

Control 12.77 5.03

220°C 12.97 4.89

230°C 12.91 4.78

260°C 13.30 4.67

Hollow 8.11 2.82

Circle 10.08 3.51

Rectangle 9.56 3.45

Hexagon 9.87 3.26

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Marietta Scanlon, Instructor of EngineeringPennsylvania State University, Lehigh Valley Campus

Joseph Masiewicz and Richard Mastrorilli

The Effects of Infill Solidity and Deposition Temperature on the Tensile Properties of 3-D Printed ABS Models

Temperature Variation

Control

Deposition Temperature

Infill Structure

Infill Geometry Variation

Infill Structure

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Ult

imat

e T

en

sile

St

ren

gth

(ks

i)

Mass (g)

Ultimate Tensile Strength v. Mass

Acknowledgements• Dr. James Scanlon, Carpenter Technology Corporation, Reading, PA

• Dr. Hal Scholz, Pennsylvania State University, Center Valley, PA

• Felicia Mastrorilli, Aperture Studios, Nazareth, PA

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lines Circle Rec. Hex. Hollow

Ult

imat

e T

en

sile

Str

en

gth

(ks

i)

Effect of Infill Structure on Ultimate Tensile Strength

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

210 220 230 260

Ult

imat

e T

en

sile

Str

en

gth

(k

si)

Effects of Deposition Temperature on Ultimate Tensile Strength

Temperature °C