![]() In this case, it was expected that the shape of cross-section of the printed fiber would advantageously become similar to a rectangle. Consequently, the initially round (oval)-shaped filament was intentionally tightly placed on top of the component so that the available space would be filled in the most. The negative air gaps are, however, correct and represent the cases when the print head remained sufficiently close to the printed component. Although all of the air gaps presented in Figure 9 are positive, it should be noted that some may become negative. Consequently, the parameters in Table 2, which were found with the G-code generated by PrusaSlicer, were introduced into Cura as the distances between the fibers-as referenced in Table 2 in Point 2. The medians for the distances between the axes of the neighboring fibers were determined by introducing the nozzle diameter. The values of the respective coefficients “infill” and “infill distance” are provided in Table 2. Similar to the previous case, for PrusaSlicer, the investigated quantity depends on the layer height. Moreover, only the fibers inclined at the angles of 45 ∘ and 135 ∘ were taken into account. As the author of the above-cited work concluded, the mentioned issues make it difficult or even impossible to compare the obtained outcomes reported in various sources.įigure 9 presents the distances between the fibers in the layers considered separately, i.e., the in-plane measures were of concern. This source of potential incompatibility regarding the experimental results was addressed in the work. Summarizing, the research teams had test stands equipped with different printers or various 3D sample manufacturing software. In the reviewed works, however, attention was drawn toward the lack of appropriate standards describing the testing processes for the elements made with the use of additive technologies. It is especially worth noting that a significant number of the cited papers did not specify the type of slicer used, which seems an important aspect for the issue of investigation on the origins of the strength and geometric property variations for the 3D-printed components. ![]() Next, the use of Cura and Makerware is preferred by researchers. In reference to the above-mentioned choices regarding 3D printers, Insight, the software developed by the company Stratasys, was found to be the most frequently applied slicer, considering the limitation that no external software is allowed to generate the G-code in this case. Amongst them, the solutions provided by the Stratasys company have been used in six cases, as reported in. It is worth noting that another 16 different 3D printers have been used for manufacturing 3D samples in the remaining works in the authors’ review. Moreover, the studied cases have made use of Ultimaker 2 and Stratasys Dimension 3D. Amongst all the scientific investigations recently reviewed by the authors of the current work, the most frequently used device has been Makerbot Replicator 2x, as referenced, e.g., in. In fact, a number of 3D printers have been employed thus far to prepare samples to conduct laboratory tests. It should be, however, noted that one of the key issues regarding the obtained characteristics of the 3D-printed parts is the selection of both a 3D printer and a proper slicer. In recent years as well, researches have focused on composites, materials with impurities, and fiber reinforcement. Most of the tests have been conducted on the two most popular materials: PLA and ABS. For about the last 20 years, extensive research has been carried out on the influence of various manufacturing process parameters on the strength and geometric properties of 3D prints.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |