Tensile Property Enhancement by Laying the Continuous Carbon Fiber during 3D Printing Process

Article Preview

Abstract:

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is widely used in additive manufacturing. The main limitations of 3-Dimentisonal (3D) printing are the expansive cost of the material and its low strength as compared to the traditional molding process. The supported material was more expensive because of the extrusion process. The high surface roughness in the nature of 3D printed objects is the principal reason for mechanical property weakness. To eliminate such problems, a pellet-based 3D printer coupled with the layup fiber technique was introduced in this preliminary study. The obtained result indicated that the sample produced by the pellet-based printer had the highest mechanical strength in the machine direction. A reduction in tensile strength was found at another raster angle. After considering the differences between carbon fiber (CF) formats, it was found that chopped fiber was ineffective in terms of printed strength. At the same time, the layup fabric type and continuous fiber could promote better mechanical properties. When analyzing the ratio of maximum strength/fiber weight, it should be noted that continuous fiber presented the highest reinforced efficiency.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Materials Science Forum (Volume 1150)

Pages:

21-26

Citation:

Online since:

June 2025

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2025 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] S.C. Daminabo, S. Goel, S.A. Grammatikos, H.Y. Nezhad, V.K. Thakur. Mater Today Chem, 16 (2020), p.100248.

DOI: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2020.100248

Google Scholar

[2] B.N. Turner, R. Strong, S.A. Gold A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling Rapid Prototyp J, 20 (3) (2014)

DOI: 10.1108/rpj-01-2013-0012

Google Scholar

[3] S. Vyavahare, S. Teraiya, D. Panghal and S. Kumar. Fused deposition modelling: a review Rapid Prototyp J, 26 (1) (2020)

DOI: 10.1108/rpj-04-2019-0106

Google Scholar

[4] A. Cano-Vicent, M.M. Tambuwala, S.S. Hassan, D. Barh, A.A. Aljabali, M. Birkett, A. Arjunan and Á. Serrano-Aroca. Additive manufacturing, 47 (2021), p.102378.

DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2021.102378

Google Scholar

[5] O.S. Carneiro, A.F. Silva, R. Gomes. Mater. Design., 83 (2015), pp.768-776.

Google Scholar

[6] K. Chansoda, C. Suvanjumrat and W. Chookaew. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Vol. 1137, No. 1(2021), p.012032

DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/1137/1/012032

Google Scholar

[7] K. Chansoda., C. Suvanjumrat and W. Chookaew. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 773 (2020) 012053

Google Scholar

[8] C. Suvanjumrat., K. Chansoda and W. Chookaew. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 20 (2024) p.100753

DOI: 10.1016/j.clet.2024.100753

Google Scholar

[9] V. Tambrallimath, R. Keshavamurthy, D. Saravanabavan, P.G. Koppad, G.S.P. Kumar. Compos. Commun. 15 (2019) p.129–134

Google Scholar

[10] J.L. Wang, S. Mubarak, D. Dhamodharan, N. Divakaran, L.X. Wu, X. Zhang. Compos. Commun. 19 (2020) p.142–146

Google Scholar

[11] K.S. Patel, D.B. Shah, S.J. Joshi and K.M. Patel. Cleaner Materials (2023) p.100207

Google Scholar

[12] K. Chansoda, C. Suvanjumrat and W. Chookaew. In IOP conference series: materials science and engineering. Vol. 773, No. 1 (2020) p.012053

Google Scholar

[13] M. R. Khosravani, & T. Reinicke. Procedia Structural Integrity 28 720–725. (2020).

Google Scholar

[14] X. Peng, M. Zhang, Z. Guo, L. Sanga, W. Hou. Composites communication. (2020) p.1004783.

Google Scholar

[15] Y. Ma, Y. Tian, Y. He, C. Jia, B. Su, X. Shu and G. Xiao. Polymer Testing 133 (2024) p.108407.

Google Scholar