Research Article

Comparison of Strength, Surface Quality and Cost of Different Additive Manufacturing Methods

Volume: 4 Number: 1 April 30, 2023
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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