EN
TR
Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods
Abstract
Additive manufacturing is a manufacturing method that includes systems that produce using many different methods. The most widely used and accessible methods of additive manufacturing can be listed as Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and UV light assisted Stereolithography (SLA). Today, it is quite easy to produce thermoplastic products suitable for direct use in low quantities with these three methods. In addition, the production success of the parts produced in geometric difficulties also increases this demand. The most important problem is the lack of sufficient studies and information about the strength limits, surface quality and costs of the parts produced for additive manufacturing methods with such advantages. In this study, the comparison of three different production methods in terms of surface roughness, strength and cost is discussed in order to eliminate this deficiency in the literature. For this purpose, the tensile strength and surface roughness values of the samples produced using FDM, SLS and SLA methods were determined. In addition, cost analyzes were made depending on the production time of the produced samples. In the study, the lowest cost was obtained in the SLA material with a value of $ 0.19. Again, the lowest values were obtained for the samples produced from SLA material, with a production time of 17 minutes and a surface roughness of 1.96µm compared to other methods. However, when evaluated in terms of strength, the highest strength value was obtained as 57.67 N/mm2 in the FDM method.
Keywords
References
- 1. H. Wu, W.P. Fahy, S. Kim, H. Kim, N. Zhao, L. Pilato, A. Kafi, S. Bateman, J.H. Koo, Recent developments in polymers/polymer nanocomposites for additive manufacturing, Progress in Materials Science, 111:100638, 2020.
- 2. X. Wei, D. Li, W. Jiang, Z. Gu, X. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Sun, 3D Printable Graphene Composite, Scientific Reports, 5(1):11181, 2015.
- 3. D. Küpper, W. Heising, G. Corman, M. Wolfgang, C. Knizek, V. Lukic, Get ready for industrialized additive manufacturing, Digit. Bost. Consult. Gr. 1–15, 2019.
- 4. S. Gantenbein, K. Masania, W. Woigk, J.P.W. Sesseg, T.A. Tervoort, A.R. Studart, Three-dimensional printing of hierarchical liquid-crystal-polymer structures, Nature, 561: 226–230, 2018.
- 5. Gnanasekaran, K., Heijmans, T., van Bennekom, S., Woldhuis, H., Wijnia, S., de With, G., Friedrich, H., 3D printing of CNT- and graphene-based conductive polymer nanocomposites by fused deposition modeling. Appl. Mater. Today, 9: 21–28, 2017.
- 6. K. Kim, J. Park, J. Suh, M. Kim, Y. Jeong, I. Park, 3D printing of multiaxial force sensors using carbon nanotube (CNT)/thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) filaments, Sensors Actuators, A Phys. 263:493–500, 2017.
- 7. T.D. Ngo, A. Kashani, G. Imbalzano, K.T.Q. Nguyen, D. Hui, Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges, Composite Part B: Engineering, 143:172-196, 2018.
- 8. S. Garzon-Hernandez, D. Garcia-Gonzalez, A. Jérusalem, A. Arias, Design of FDM 3D printed polymers: An experimental-modelling methodology for the prediction of mechanical properties, Materials and Design, 188, 108414, 2020.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Mechanical Engineering
Journal Section
Research Article
Early Pub Date
April 30, 2023
Publication Date
April 30, 2023
Submission Date
March 15, 2023
Acceptance Date
April 3, 2023
Published in Issue
Year 2023 Volume: 4 Number: 1
APA
Sofu, M. M., Varol Özkavak, H., Bacak, S., & Fenkli, M. (2023). Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods. Manufacturing Technologies and Applications, 4(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.52795/mateca.1265509
AMA
1.Sofu MM, Varol Özkavak H, Bacak S, Fenkli M. Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods. MATECA. 2023;4(1):25-36. doi:10.52795/mateca.1265509
Chicago
Sofu, Mehmet Mahir, Hatice Varol Özkavak, Selim Bacak, and Mehmet Fenkli. 2023. “Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods”. Manufacturing Technologies and Applications 4 (1): 25-36. https://doi.org/10.52795/mateca.1265509.
EndNote
Sofu MM, Varol Özkavak H, Bacak S, Fenkli M (April 1, 2023) Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods. Manufacturing Technologies and Applications 4 1 25–36.
IEEE
[1]M. M. Sofu, H. Varol Özkavak, S. Bacak, and M. Fenkli, “Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods”, MATECA, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25–36, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.52795/mateca.1265509.
ISNAD
Sofu, Mehmet Mahir - Varol Özkavak, Hatice - Bacak, Selim - Fenkli, Mehmet. “Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods”. Manufacturing Technologies and Applications 4/1 (April 1, 2023): 25-36. https://doi.org/10.52795/mateca.1265509.
JAMA
1.Sofu MM, Varol Özkavak H, Bacak S, Fenkli M. Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods. MATECA. 2023;4:25–36.
MLA
Sofu, Mehmet Mahir, et al. “Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods”. Manufacturing Technologies and Applications, vol. 4, no. 1, Apr. 2023, pp. 25-36, doi:10.52795/mateca.1265509.
Vancouver
1.Mehmet Mahir Sofu, Hatice Varol Özkavak, Selim Bacak, Mehmet Fenkli. Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods. MATECA. 2023 Apr. 1;4(1):25-36. doi:10.52795/mateca.1265509