Analysis of FDM 3D Printed Specimen

Weiyi Song
A Comparative Analysis of Fused
Deposition Modeling 3D Printed
Specimen

2 | P A G E
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Fused Deposition Modeling.................................................................................................................3
1.2 Perimeters for 3D Printing ..................................................................................................................4
1. Infill Percentages..........................................................................................................................4
2. Infill Patterns ................................................................................................................................5
3. Printable Materials.......................................................................................................................6
2. Experiment Procedures..........................................................................................................................8
2.1 Specimen Design.................................................................................................................................8
2.2 Procedures and Data for Different Infill Percentages..........................................................................9
1. Cost..................................................................................................................................................10
2. Performance ....................................................................................................................................11
3. Time .................................................................................................................................................12
4. Quality .............................................................................................................................................13
2.2 Procedures and Data for Different Infill Patterns..............................................................................14
1. Cost..................................................................................................................................................15
2. Performance ....................................................................................................................................16
3. Time .................................................................................................................................................16
4. Quality .............................................................................................................................................17
3. Result and Analysis .............................................................................................................................17
3.1 Analysis for Different Infill Percentages...........................................................................................17
1. Cost .............................................................................................................................................17
2. Performance................................................................................................................................18
3. Time.............................................................................................................................................18
4. Quality.........................................................................................................................................19
3.2 Analysis for Different Infill Patterns ..........................................................................................20
1. Cost .............................................................................................................................................20
2. Performance................................................................................................................................20
4. Discussion............................................................................................................................................22
5. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................24
Appendix.....................................................................................................................................................25

3 | P A G E
1. Introduction
The objective of this project is to investigate how different infill percentages, infill patterns, and
printable materials affect Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 3D printed specimen’s mechanical
properties. Second objective is to discover the most efficient combinations based on the result from the
experiment for future applications. Each specimen are compared by four categories: cost, performance,
time and quality. Cost is referring to how much materials consumed to produce each specimen.
Performance is regarding to the specimen’s mechanical properties after being printed. Time compares
how long to make each specimen, and quality checks for surface smoothness. There are three main
variables in this study, thus the entire project includes three phases. Phase one will control infill patterns
and printable materials, but varying infill percentage from 0 percentage to 100 percentages. Phase two
will fix the infill percentages and materials, but changing infill patterns. The last phase will limit both
infill patterns and percentages, but vary printable materials. It is worth mentioning that beyond these three
major factors, other parameters such as shell thickness, layer heights, printing orientation, and nozzle
diameter will also effect the mechanical properties of the 3D printed parts. However, these factors are not
the focus at this moment; they are the controlled perimeters throughout this experiment to insure they do
not affect the experiment result.
1.1 Fused Deposition Modeling
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is an additive manufacturing technology introduced by S.
Scott Crump in the late 1988. The first step towards to generate a 3D printed part begins with so-called
slicing process. Typically, a 3D computer-aided design (CAD) model in STL format will importe into a
slicing software. The software will “slice” or analysis the model layer by layer into a series of Z-thickness
planes, and then the path of the extruder is created for each layer and is stored as g-codes to guide the 3D
printer.
Figure 1: Illustration of Slicing Process

4 | P A G E
The actual printing works as following: a spool of plastic filament is extruded into a heated block
with a nozzle in the end (often-called hot-end), and then the material is laying down on the printing bed
layer by layer until the print is complete.
Figure 2: Illustration for FDM Process [2]
1.2 Perimeters for 3D Printing
There are several key perimeters can be changed during the slicing process in order to control the
cost, performance, time and quality of the 3D printed parts.
1. Infill Percentages
The middle section of any 3D printed parts are usually hollow and filled with certain percentage
of materials inside. For instance, a 10% infill means 10% volume in middle section has material to
support the entire parts. Figure 3 is a demonstration of different infill percentages for one layer of
honeycomb pattern.

5 | P A G E
Figure 3: Different Infill Percentages
Improving fill percentage will usually result an increase in cost, time, and yield better
performance. Nevertheless, it is still undetermined about an ideal infill percentage to achieve good
performance with low in cost and time. This is the focus for the phase one of the project.
2. Infill Patterns
Infill patterns are referring to the different ways materials lay down inside the 3D printed parts.
Some advanced slicing software will allow users to choose different infill patterns for different
application. For example, honeycomb pattern usually deemed as the strongest infill pattern among the
rest, however due to its complexity, the cost and the time would increase accordingly. On the other hand,
line patterns yield a quicker print, but consequently its structure is weaker. It is worth mentioning that line
and rectilinear patterns are the most common patterns adopted by most slicing software.

6 | P A G E
Figure 4: Different Infill Patterns
For phase two, eight different infill patterns shown in Figure 4 are under investigation in terms of
cost, performance, time, and quality.
3. Printable Materials
Since the booming of 3D printing technology in recent years, there are more and more printable
materials available in the market besides commonly known materials such as PLA and ABS. Figure 5 is a
sample of different materials used in 3D printing.

7 | P A G E
Figure 5: Different Printable Materials
Despite most of them are thermoplastics or co-polymers, the properties of each material can vary
a great deal in term of tensile strength and maximum elongation. Properties of some 3D printable
materials are given in Table 1. Since there are new materials constantly emerge from the market, this will
be the most time consuming phase, thus due to the constraint of time, phase three would not include in
this study.
Table 1: Properties of Sample Material
3D Printable
Material
Tensile Strength
(MPa)
Maximum
Elongation (%)
Types
PLA 60 3 Common Material
PCTPE 35 497.6 Flexible Material
HIPS 21 25 Common Material
Alloy 910 56 32 Engineering
Material

8 | P A G E
2. Experiment Procedures
2.1 Specimen Design
Figure 6: Specimen Model
Figure 6 shows the specimen model used for phase one and phase two. The model is similar to a
cylinder with width, depth and height of 51.9 mm, 52.0 mm, and 30.0 mm. The upper and lower edges in
the middle section are round to avoid stress concentrator. There are solid-infill of 6.5 mm both from top
and bottom surface, this will insure the cracks will not occur anywhere else other than the middle section.
Each test will perform with five specimens and all specimen are made from same printers and material to
insure the reliability and accuracy of the result. Figure 7 is a cross sectional view shows the concept of
this specimen.

9 | P A G E
Figure 7: Cross Sectional Image of Specimen
2.2 Procedures and Data for Different Infill Percentages
Instron 4483 load frame is the main instrument for performing all the compressive tests. The load
cell is 100 KN with an error of 0.5%. The sampling frequency is at 10 Hz and the crosshead speed is 10
mm/Min. Meta compression cylindrical plastic test is pre-loaded into the system prior to the test. Detailed
demonstrations are showed in Figure A1 and A2. To insure the load is uniformly distributed through the
entire specimen, a ball load is placed on top of each specimen during the test.
Figure 8: Ball Load
Figure 9 and 10 are the cross-sectional images from Cura 15.02 (slicing software) to illustrate
different infill percentages of specimen.
Testing Section

10 | P A G E
Figure 9: Cross-Sectional Images of Different Infill Percentages
Figure 10: Cross-Sectional Images of Different Infill Percentages
1. Cost
The term cost defines the material consumed in each different infill percentage. The weight scale
used in the experiment is A&D Company FX-300i with an accuracy of 0.01g.

11 | P A G E
Table 2: Weights of Different Infill Percentages
Specimens with Infill
Percentages
Spcimen_1
(g)
Spcimen_2
(g)
Spcimen_3
(g)
Spcimen_4
(g)
Spcimen_5
(g)
Average
Weight
(g)
0% 29.979 30.452 30.412 29.068 27.313 29.445
10% 31.884 31.832 31.849 31.862 31.848 31.855
20% 34.592 34.779 34.516 34.552 34.571 34.602
30% 36.740 36.795 36.763 37.067 37.043 36.882
40% 39.139 38.989 39.085 38.882 40.114 39.242
50% 40.078 40.036 40.028 40.077 41.891 40.422
60% 45.430 45.504 45.337 45.457 45.412 45.428
70% 46.840 47.549 46.871 47.471 46.814 47.109
80% 48.622 48.299 48.051 48.238 47.646 48.171
90% 51.674 51.828 51.676 51.820 51.888 51.777
100% 54.323 54.256 54.504 54.398 54.580 54.412
2. Performance
Most of the 3D printed parts made in this lab are frequently under compressive load, and
conducting compressive tests are relatively easy. Hence, performance in this research is defined as the
compressive load that each specimen can take. Table 3 are the results from each tests.
Table 3: Compressive Loads of Different Infill Percentages
Specimens
with Infill
Percentages
Spcimen_1
(KN)
Spcimen_2
(KN)
Spcimen_3
(KN)
Spcimen_4
(KN)
Spcimen_5
(KN)
Average
Load (KN)
0% 4.820 3.200 5.670 3.191 4.912 4.359
10% 7.979 8.557 8.009 7.678 7.864 8.017

12 | P A G E
20% 17.60 16.59 17.52 18.62 17.73 17.61
30% 13.83 13.58 13.45 13.42 13.60 13.58
40% 18.56 19.15 19.48 18.93 19.19 19.06
50% 28.44 30.77 29.82 30.85 29.11 29.80
60% 34.28 31.69 34.00 31.67 35.72 33.47
70% 43.12 44.14 41.87 43.34 43.4 43.17
80% 51.13 52.25 51.42 53.10 50.29 51.64
90% 62.95 68.95 72.92 65.36 71.28 68.29
100% 80.50 82.46 83.36 85.79 82.71 82.96
3. Time
Time defines the minutes spent to print each specimen at a given infill percentage. This result is
directly calculated during the slicing phase by Cura 15.02. Table 4 records the result for each specimen.
Time constant is a ratio between other infill percentages comparing to 0% infill. This value will be used
in the following discussion section.
Table 4: Time Spent for Different Infill Percentages
Specimens with
Infill Percentages
Time Spent (mins) Time Constant
0% 84 1
10% 85 1.012
20% 89 1.059
30% 94 1.119
40% 98 1.167
50% 103 1.226
60% 108 1.286

13 | P A G E
70% 113 1.345
80% 118 1.405
90% 122 1.452
100% 136 1.619
4. Quality
Quality is a measurement of surface smoothness for each specimen. It is an important factor not
only to physical appearance but also for dimension accuracy. There are many ways to measure surface
smoothness, due to the time constraints, this value is only obtained by vision inspection in this research.
Figure 11 shows a yellow 20% infill that has a better surface smoothness then a red 100% infill with a
poor surface smoothness. Thus, high, medium, and low are the three different perimeters to describe
surface smoothness. Three different values are assigned to each surface smoothness as surface constant.
Figure 11: Comparison of Different Surface Smoothness

14 | P A G E
Table 5 Surface Smoothness of Different Infill Percentages
Specimens
with Infill
Percentages
Surface
Smoothness
Surface
Constant
0% Medium 1.1
10% Medium 1.1
20% High 0.9
30% High 0.9
40% High 0.9
50% High 0.9
60% High 0.9
70% High 0.9
80% High 0.9
90% Medium 1.1
100% Low 1.2
2.2 Procedures and Data for Different Infill Patterns
The testing procedures stay the same with infill percentage. Figure 12 shows the cross-sectional
images of different infill patterns in each specimen.

15 | P A G E
Figure 12: Cross-sectional Images of Different Infill Patterns
1. Cost
Table 6: Weights for Different Infill Patterns
Different Infill
Patterns with 50%
Infill
Spcimen_1
(g)
Spcimen_2
(g)
Spcimen_3
(g)
Spcimen_4
(g)
Spcimen_5
(g)
Average
Weight
(g)
Rectilinear 40.078 40.036 40.028 40.077 41.891 40.422
Line 32.183 32.089 32.929 31.748 32.603 37.156
Concentric 38.525 38.127 38.345 38.113 37.600 38.142
3D Honeycomb 42.541 43.248 42.432 43.271 42.723 42.843

16 | P A G E
Honeycomb 40.284 39.776 39.915 40.324 40.382 40.136
Archimedean
Chords
38.384 38.289 38.153 37.802 38.267 38.179
Octagram Spiral 36.365 36.186 36.248 36.258 36.216 36.254
Hilbert Curve 38.613 36.672 38.525 36.531 37.065 37.481
2. Performance
Table 7: Compressive Loads for Different Infill Patterns
Different Infill
Patterns with
50% Infill
Spcimen_1
(KN)
Spcimen_2
(KN)
Spcimen_3
(KN)
Spcimen_4
(KN)
Spcimen_5
(KN)
Average
Load
(KN)
Rectilinear 28.44 30.77 29.82 30.85 29.11 29.80
Line 15.45 13.92 13.54 14.91 14.83 14.53
Concentric 14.86 16.85 14.92 16.10 12.90 15.13
3D honeycomb 36.87 42.05 39.40 39.51 41.60 39.89
Honeycomb 28.02 26.77 32.28 29.79 33.17 30.01
Archimedean
Chords
14.70 16.23 14.13 14.98 13.52 14.71
Octagram
Spiral
16.95 17.42 17.69 17.86 16.82 17.35
Hilbert Curve 26.45 27.86 26.87 29.00 28.56 27.75
3. Time
The software that generates these infill patterns does not provide an estimation time for each
prints, therefore time spent cannot be calculated directly. Nevertheless, by recording the printing time
physically could yield data for this section. This steps will take a great deal of human resource to achieve

17 | P A G E
due to the fact there are over 40 specimens are in the making and each infill patterns will finish in a
different time slot. Hence, time consumption is not included in this part.
4. Quality
All of the infill patterns with 50% infill achieve a very good result in quality wise. There is no
notable different for surface smoothness nor any other factors. Thus, this section is not included as well.
3. Result and Analysis
3.1 Analysis for Different Infill Percentages
The images and plots of each test result are in the appendix section.
1. Cost
Figure 13 is a plot that compares different infill percentages to weight from the data given in
Table 2.
Figure 13: Graph of Average Weight vs. Infill Percentages
Prior to the experiment, the assumption is the correlation between infill percentage and weight should be
a linear relationship. However, a linear relationship is only observed from 0% to 40% and 60% to 80%.
There is a little weight increase from 40% to 50% while a large increase in weight from 80% to 100%.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Weight(g)
Infill Percentages
Average Weight vs. Infill Percentages

18 | P A G E
2. Performance
Figure 14 shows the graph for the average compressive load at each infill percentage. The
weakest load is at 0% with a value of 4.36 KN, and the largest load occurs at 100% with a value of 82.97
KN, which is 19 times more than at 0%. In general, as the infill percentage increase, the weight and the
compressive load will increase accordingly. However, the change of the slope from 20 to 40% iFigure 14
proves otherwise. As the weight and the infill percentage increase from 20% to 30%, the compressive
load surprisingly decreases. This is a very unusual phenomena and it is against common intuition. The
result is obtained from the average value of five specimens, so it cannot be a defect or singularity. Other
than the section from 20% to 40%, the rest stays a liner relationship between infill percentages and
compressive load.
Figure 14: Graph of Average Compressive Load vs. Infill Percentages
3. Time
The correlation between time spent and infill percentages is expected to be strict liner. Figure 15
illustrates this correlation in graph. The only notable differences occur at 0% to 10% and 90% to 100%.
The time spent reminds relatively same from 0% to 10%, but change dramatically from 90% to 100%.
From 10% to 90%, the slope reminds a perfect linear mode.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CompressiveLoad(KN)
Infill Percentage
Average Compressive Load vs. Diffneret Infill Percetanges

19 | P A G E
Figure 15: Time Spent vs. Infill Percentages
4. Quality
Figure 16 shows the different surface smoothness at each infill percentages. A lower value
represents a better surface smoothness that obtain by vision inspection. Specimen with 20% to 80% infill
always yield an equally good surface finishing, while 0%, 90%, and 100% have relatively bad surface
finishing.
Figure 16: Surface Smoothness vs. Infill Percentage:
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
TimeSpent(min)
Infill Percentages
Time Spent vs. Infill Percentages
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SurfaceSmoothnessValue
Infill Percentages
Surface Smoothness vs. Infill Percentage

20 | P A G E
3.2Analysis for Different Infill Patterns
1. Cost
Figure 17 indicates the cost compares to different infill patterns. 3D honeycomb patterns consume
an average of 42.85 g material that is the highest among all. The lowest pattern is Octagram spirals that
use an average of 36.25 g material.
Figure 17: Average Weight vs. Infill Patterns
2. Performance
3D honeycomb takes the highest compressive load when compares to the rest as shown in Figure
18. The common assumption will be the heavier the part is, the more load it can take. However, this is not
the case shown in Table 8. For example, Octagram Spiral is the lightest infill pattern but it ranks number
5 in the compression test. This result indicates that infill patterns play a significantly role during the
compression test. The load is not only determined by how much material built inside of each part, but it
also influenced by the way they put inside. Alternatively speaking, both infill percentage and infill
patterns have a large impact on the performance.
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Rectilinear Line Concentric 3D
HoneyComb
HoneyComb Archimedean
Chords
Octagram
Spiral
Hilbert Curve
Weight(g)
Average Weight vs. Infill Patterns

21 | P A G E
Figure 18: Average Compressive Load vs. Infill Patterns
Table 8: Comparison of Weight and Load for Different Infill Patterns
Ranks Weight Compressive Load
1 3D Honeycomb 3D Honeycomb
2 Rectilinear Honeycomb
3 Honeycomb Rectilinear
4 Archimedean Chords Hilbert Curve
5 Concentric Octagram Spiral
6 Hilbert Curve Concentric
7 Line Archimedean Chords
8 Octagram Spiral Lines
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
HoneyComb
Chords
Octagram
Spiral
Hilbert Curve
CompressiveLoad(KN) Average Compressive Load vs. Infill Patterns

22 | P A G E
4. Discussion
One of the main objectives for the research is to discover the most efficient combinations of infill
percentage and infill patterns by comparing cost, time, performance and quality. To achieve such goal, an
efficiency formula is used to perform the calculation and obtain a quantitative comparison. Performance
Efficiency Value or PEV formula defines as following:
PEV (Performance efficiency Vaule) =
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
(𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡)(𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡)(𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡)
PEV is a unit-less number that compares performance or in this case, compressive load, to other
factors such as cost (material consumption), time, and quality (surface smoothness). For instance, 90%
infill has a compressive load of 68.3 KN that is higher than 80% infill that has a value of 51.6 KN. These
values are the directly compression without considering cost, time, and surface smoothness. By applying
PEV formula, we have:
PEV (90% infill) =
68.3
(51.78)(1.45)(1.1)
= 0.826
PEV (80% infill) =
51.6
(48.17)(1.4)(0.9)
= 0.849
Based on PEV calculation, 80% infill is more effective than 90% infill when considering cost, time, and
quality. Figure 19 illustrates the comparison of PEV for each different infill percentage. Three bars
marked with yellow are the efficient choices based on desired applications. For instances, for a quick print
such as making models, 20% infill is a great choice among all due to it provides a relatively strong
structure and use much less materials and time. For a part that is under a significant load or any
engineering application parts, 80% infill is the best choice since it can handle a great deal of load at a
relatively low time and material consumption rate.
To find out the most efficient infill patterns, same PEV calculation is used to yield a quantitative
comparison. Figure 20 shows the comparison of PEV for each infill patterns. The yellow bar that is 3D
honeycomb patterns has the highest PEV among all, follow by honeycomb, Hilbert curve, and rectilinear.
Nevertheless, the PEV calculation does not including other factors such as advantages and disadvantage
of each infill patterns. For example, the advantage of honeycomb patterns is to provide support for any
directions unlike some infill patterns that only provides unidirectional support. Due the complexity to
make honeycomb pattern, machine wearing is most likely to occur than printing any other patterns. These
conditions are very difficult to quantify, thus PEV of calculating infill patterns does not consider them.

23 | P A G E
Figure 19: PEV Comparison for Each Infill Percentage
Figure 20: PEV Comparison for Each Infill Patterns
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PerformanceEfficiencyVaule
Infill Percentage
Comparison of PEV for Different Infill Percentage
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
HoneyComb
Chords
Octagram
Spiral
Hilbert Curve
PerformanceEfficiencyVaule
Comparison of PEV for Different Infill Patterns

24 | P A G E
5. Conclusion
Through a series of experiments, the results indicate that infill percentages and infill patterns have
significant impacts on the mechanical properties of 3D printed parts. With further analysis of
experimental data, a profound understanding is established regarding the optimal infill percentage and
infill patterns to select based on cost, time, performance, and quality. However, there are still many
unknowns are not addressed. For instances, the sudden drop of compressive load from 20% infill to 40%
infill, the reason behind some infill patterns are superior than the other, and other factors that are
influential such as shell thickness, printing orientation, different printable materials etc.
The other intention of this research is to build the groundwork for future studies. The process and
layout from this research can serve as reference or baseline to follow when conducting similar studies.
Moreover, a great deal of new topics are emerging throughout this study and future research can adopt
them to deepen the understanding for this subject. Their focus can be solving the unknowns that remained
in this study, choose other influential perimeters to investigate, or refining what are studied and use an
alternative method such as comparing across sectional area to compressive load for each specimen.
In summary, it is very important to continue carry on this study, so a deeper and broader
understanding is created regarding to the newly developed 3D printing technology.

25 | P A G E
Appendix
Figure A 1: Test Set-up

26 | P A G E
Figure A 2: Close-Look for Testing Specimen

27 | P A G E
Figure A 3: 0% Result

28 | P A G E

29 | P A G E

30 | P A G E

31 | P A G E

32 | P A G E
Figure A 14 : Octagram Spiral

33 | P A G E
Figure A 15: Archimedean Chords Result
Figure A 16: Line Result

34 | P A G E
Figure A 17: Hilbert Curve Result
Figure A 18: Concentric Result

35 | P A G E
Figure A 19: 3D-Honeycomb Result
Figure A 20: Honeycomb Result

36 | P A G E
Figure A 21: Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 100% Filled Rectlinear Specimen
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)
Compressive Strain (mm/mm)

37 | P A G E
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

38 | P A G E
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
Load(kN)

39 | P A G E
Figure A 24:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 80% Filled Rectlinear Specimen
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
Load(kN)

40 | P A G E
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

41 | P A G E
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

42 | P A G E
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

43 | P A G E
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

44 | P A G E
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

45 | P A G E
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

46 | P A G E
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

47 | P A G E
Figure A 32:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 0% Filled Specimen
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

48 | P A G E
Figure A 33:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 50% Filled Archimedean Chord Specimen
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

49 | P A G E
Figure A 34:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 50% Filled Concentric Specimen
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

50 | P A G E
Figure A 35:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 50% Filled Hilbert Curve Specimen
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

51 | P A G E
Figure A 36:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 50% Filled Honeycomb Specimen
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

52 | P A G E
Figure A 37:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 50% Filled 3D-Honeycomb Specimen
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

53 | P A G E
Figure A 38:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 50% Filled Line Specimen
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

54 | P A G E
Figure A 39:Load vs. Strain Curve of Compressive Test for 50% Filled Octagram Spiral Specimen
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Load(kN)

Analysis of FDM 3D Printed Specimen

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Analysis of FDM 3D Printed Specimen

Similar to Analysis of FDM 3D Printed Specimen (20)

Analysis of FDM 3D Printed Specimen