Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparative Analysis of 3D Printing and Injection Molding for Biocomposites: QuantifyingLimitations in 3D Printing
University of Borås, Faculty of Textiles, Engineering and Business. (Polymer group)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2325-7928
2024 (English)Conference paper, Poster (with or without abstract) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The production methods could affect the properties of the components produced. This study investigatesthe impact of a production method, 3D printer, on water absorption, mechanical and thermal propertiesof the biocomposites produced from poly(lactic) acid and wood particles. The results were analyzedcomparatively with injection molding. A minor change (0.1 mm) in the layer thickness in 3D printing affectedthe biocomposites’ properties significantly. The water absorption in 3D printed biocomposites causedswelling leading to permanent dimensional changes and initiated many failure nodes across layers. Thewater absorption of the injection molded biocomposites was primarily due to the material properties whilethe water absorption of the 3D printed biocomposites was due to the combination of intrinsic porosity ofthe 3D printing and the material properties. Water absorption in injected molded biocomposites was dueto the gradual absorption of water from surface to the core. Increasing the biocomposites’ surface contactwith water in 3D printing increased the water absorption. Additionally, increasing the layer thickness in 3Dprinting increased the water absorption further. 3D printed biocomposites mechanically performed betteron decreasing the layer thickness. Lower porosity on decreasing the layer thickness was the predominantfactor. A structure’s overall strength increased when there were more contact sites and greater interlayerbonding due to smaller layer thickness. Injection molded biocomposites had higher density and bettermechanical properties than 3D printed biocomposites due to solid specimens resulting in reduced failuresites. The results from this comparative study highlights the limitations of 3D printing.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Athens, Greece, 2024.
National Category
Textile, Rubber and Polymeric Materials Polymer Technologies
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-32998OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hb-32998DiVA, id: diva2:1923529
Conference
5th International Conference on Advanced Polymer Science and Engineering
Available from: 2024-12-27 Created: 2024-12-27 Last updated: 2025-09-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Authority records

Kumar Ramamoorthy, Sunil

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Kumar Ramamoorthy, Sunil
By organisation
Faculty of Textiles, Engineering and Business
Textile, Rubber and Polymeric MaterialsPolymer Technologies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 155 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf