Abstract
Fused filament manufacturing (FFF), also known as 3D printing, is one of the most commonly used additive manufacturing techniques for creating high-quality materials. This process demonstrates the intricacies and challenges involved in choosing appropriate manufacturing parameters to achieve the desired outcomes. Among these critical parameters is the nozzle temperature, which can be adjusted to enhance the mechanical properties of the 3D-printed Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) parts. The main objective of this study is to investigate the influence of the printing temperature on the mechanical properties and failure characteristics of 3D printed polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) parts during impact testing. To do this, a series of simple and repeated impact tests were carried out on printed PPS samples in the nozzle temperature range (320–350 °C). CHARPY tests were carried out on the samples manufactured with different sequences for the optimal orientation of the filaments. Furthermore, the impact energy absorption capacity and the induced damage as a function of nozzle temperature were evaluated. CHARPY test results showed that samples with stacking sequence (0/0) had the best impact resistance and specific absorbed energy (SEA). This sequence, printed horizontally, was used to test different print temperatures in single and repeated impact tests. Furthermore, the results indicated that samples printed with a nozzle temperature of 340 °C exhibited higher CHARPY impact resistance and specific absorbed energy (SEA), with a percentage difference of 45.57%, 41.95% and 44.21% compared to samples printed with nozzle temperatures of 320 °C, 330 °C and 350 °C respectively. For repeated impact tests, the results also show that samples printed with a nozzle temperature of 340 °C have a higher initial energy absorption rate and a greater number of impacts before complete failure of the sample. This result proves also that the changing of nozzle temperature does not have a significant effect on the induced damage after CHARPY and repeated impact.
1 Introduction
Polymers have been used for many years in a variety of demanding applications. They are versatile materials that easily adapt to any application. However, in the field of polymers, several factors must be considered, as no single polymer can meet the needs of advanced applications [1–3].
Nowadays, interest in polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), which is a semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer, is increasing as it is being used in various industrial fields, including aerospace, automotive, electronics, sports, and energy industries [4]. This is mainly due to its excellent properties such as dimensional stability, chemical resistance, aging resistance, high-temperature stability, flame retardancy, radiation resistance, and non-toxicity [5]. These structures are often made up of two face sheets with good in-plane mechanical properties and a lightweight core, usually made of polymer foam material that is subjected to shear and compressive loads across the thickness. However, due to its unique features of crystallization and thermal crosslinking, PPS brings several challenges in fused filament manufacturing (FFF) [6–10].
There are various conventional methods for manufacturing polymer composites and structural components. Though most of them require hand layering of a composite or the use of expensive curing equipment and tools. These factors make traditional FRC (FIRST Robotics Competition) fabrication labour and resource intensive. Recently, researchers have introduced additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing which presents a straightforward tool-less option for directly fabricating a limited volume of freshly designed, delicate spare parts that would be expensive and time-consuming to make using classic manufacturing processes such as moulding [11, 12]. Furthermore, the shape of a part may be easily adjusted using AM to create an ideal structure with the appropriate mechanical qualities and the least amount of weight. AM is also an environmentally friendly manufacturing technology, having the potential to reduce overall CO2 emissions by 525.5 Mt by 2025.
Fused filament manufacturing (FFF) is a commonly used additive manufacturing method that uses composite filaments to create functional components [13]. This technique consists of melting a thermoplastic material and extruding it via a nozzle to create a component based on an input CAD model. One of the benefits of FFF is the simplicity with which complicated geometry components may be produced at a low cost and in a short period. Regarding its efficiency, the FFF technique has numerous limitations, such as residual stresses in fused deposition modelled components, which have a significant impact on their performance. These residual stresses are created by the repeated heating and cooling cycles of the successive layers throughout the FFF procedure, and they remain in the simulated component even after achieving stability with the environment. These stresses are typically increased by the incorrect configuration of the user-specified parameters during the FFF process. Diverse printing parameters, including component orientation on the build plate, nozzle temperature, printing speed, layer height, and infill density, must be modified to reduce residual stresses and improve the mechanical performance and quality of the manufactured product [14–16].
In recent studies, several review papers were published on the FFF techniques to fabricate polymer composites. Shanmugam et al. [17] investigated the fatigue response of FFF-3D printed polymers and concluded that the fiber characteristics of FFF printed composites are predicted to contribute significantly to increased fatigue life. Additionally, FFF employs a diversity of thermoplastic materials because the large variance in their physical qualities modifies the fatigue nature. As a result, it is proposed that FDM factors should be optimized with respect to material properties. El Magri et al. [18] performed an experimental study on the printing parameters of 3D printed polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) parts. They used the Surface Response method to investigate the effects of three critical fused filament fabrication (FFF) parameters on the mechanical performance of the PPS components. The key printing parameters examined were the printing speed, nozzle temperature, and layer thickness. The results showed that the layer thickness had a significant influence on the Young's modulus and degree of crystallinity of the PPS parts. Tao et al. [19] reviewed the voids of 3D printed parts by fused filament fabrication, they have discussed the relationship between voids and the mechanical behaviour of FFF parts. They have concluded that the presence of voids may affect interlayer heat transfer, weaken interlayer bonding and perhaps cause further voids. Also, the properties of void structures may reveal important data for implementing and/or enhancing treatments aimed at increasing component strength, such as post-annealing or impregnation with other phases. Voids in printed components generate heat and mass transmission channels. Though, the authors have suggested that the use of voids as heat and mass transport channels should be researched more in the future. Geng et al. [20] investigated the impact of heat treatment conditions on the precision and mechanical properties of 3D printed PPS parts fabricated using fused deposition modelling. They found that the tensile and impact strengths of the 3D printed PPS materials were strongly dependent on the material's degree of crystallinity, crossover, and cross-linking properties, as well as the printing parameters such as infill and thermal processing conditions. Meanwhile, the heat conditions during printing affect interlayer diffusion, warpage, and delamination. The treating of high-performance 3D-printed PPS specimens will be possible with the proper choices of thermal processing and heat treatment parameters. Hence, the authors proposed the heat treatment method, which is a good approach for increasing interlayer strength.
This study differs from previous research by focusing on dynamic tests, such as impact tests, to evaluate the mechanical performance of 3D printed PPS (polyphenylene sulfide), while most previous studies mainly focused on static mechanical tests such as tension and bending. In addition to single impact tests, this study includes repeated impact tests, which are rarely explored in the existing literature. This offers valuable insights into the long-term durability and strength of printed PPS. To achieve this, single and repeated impact tests were conducted on PPS samples printed in a nozzle temperature of 320 °C, 330 °C, 340 °C, and 350 °C. In addition, the impact energy absorption capacity and resulting damage were evaluated as a function of nozzle temperature.
2 Materials and experimental investigations
Printing temperature and layer direction (raster direction angle) have a significant effect on the mechanical properties of 3D printed polyphenylene sulfide (PPS). In this study, we mainly focus on the effect of printing temperature. In our future work, we will try to further investigate the effect of orientation.
2.1 Materials
The polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) filament polymer used in this study was purchased from 3DXTECH (USA). The filament has a diameter of 1.75 ± 0.03 mm, a density of 1.23 g cm−3, and a melting temperature of 280 °C. The filaments were dried at 100 °C for 12 h and stored in a vacuum bag before printing. All printed parts of the PPS were manufactured by FFF using a FUNMAT HT-V3 INTAMSYS (Intelligent Additive Manufacturing Systems) printer (Shanghai, China). Designed for high-performance polymers, this 3D printer has a volume of 260 × 260 × 260 mm3 construction and reaches temperatures of up to 450 °C at the nozzle, 160 °C at the build plate, and up to 90 °C at room temperature. Filling parameters were set to 100% for all samples to obtain solid samples. As a shell type, two layers are used on the bottom and top to guarantee the best surface finish. The bottom and top layers were exposed outside the part, facing the build plate and nozzle, respectively. All pressure parameters used in this study are summarized in Table 1. To determine the optimal layer orientations of the samples tested in this study, CHARPY tests (presented below) were performed on samples with different layer orientations: 0/0, 45/–45, 0/15/0, 0/30/60, 0/15/–15, and 0/90. The 3D mode was divided into individual layers using the INTAM suite software (version 3.4.0).
Parameters of the fused filament fabrication process
| Parameters | Values | Units |
| Bed temperature | 150 | °C |
| Layer thickness | 0.15 | mm |
| Printing speed | 20–40 | mm s−1 |
| Nozzle temperature | 320–350 | °C |
| Infill pattern | Lines | |
| Chamber temperature | 30 | °C |
| Line width | 0.4 | mm |
| Number of perimeters | 2 | wall |
| Number of bottom/top layers | 02/02 | layers |
| Infill density | 100 | % |
2.2 Experimental investigations
To be able to evaluate the effect of printing temperature on the mechanical performances and failure properties of 3D printed PPS samples, dynamic tests (CHARPY, repeated impact) were performed on the PPS samples prepared with printing temperatures of 320 °C, 330 °C, 340 °C, and 350 °C.
2.2.1 CHARPY test
The CHARPY tests were used to evaluate the effect of thermal processing on the impact resistance of the PPS material (Fig. 1). Thus, a pendulum hammer equipped at its end with a knife makes it possible to develop a given energy at the moment of the impact. The energy consumed is obtained by comparing the difference in potential energy between the start of the pendulum and the end of the test. This test is carried out on standardized specimens of 80 × 10 × 4 mm3 (Fig. 2) notched according to the recommendations of the ISO 179 standard [20].
Experimental set-up of the CHARPY test
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
Tested specimens for CHARPY test
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
2.2.2 Repeated impact tests
Low-velocity impact tests were performed using a modified CHARPY testing machine, as shown in Fig. 3. The weight of the hammer was 2 kg, the length of the pendulum was 0.7 m, and a hemispherical steel striking body with a diameter of 12.7 mm was attached to the tip of the inverted pendulum. Rectangular samples of thicknesses of 6 cm and 8 mm were placed between two mounting plates (Fig. 4). The impact energy was selected based on the position of the pendulum hammer of the CHARPY testing machine. The positions of the hammer after each impact were also monitored with a video camera to assess the impact energy and the energy absorbed after each rebound. In order to conduct the impact tests, the initial impact energy was set at 20 J. During each test, the number of contacts between the impactor and the sample was monitored until the energy initially applied was completely decreased.
Experimental set-up of the repeated impact test
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
Tested specimens for repeated impact test
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
3 Results and discussion
3.1 CHARPY test results
Figure 5 shows the results of the CHARPY tests carried out on specimens with different layer orientations in order to choose the optimal layer orientations for the specimens tested during these impact tests. Three replicate samples were used for each experimental condition to ensure statistical data error.
Effect of layer orientation on CHARPY impact strength and specific energy absorbed
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
The results indicate that the layer sequence (0/0°) shows the highest values of CHARPY impact strength and specific energy absorbed (SEA); therefore, the tested samples were prepared with this stacking sequence for different temperature print values. These results can be interpreted by the fact that the samples with layer sequence (0/0°) were printed in the horizontal direction, which is perpendicular to the direction of the impact load.
The impact strength and specific absorbed energy (SEA) are essentially two energy indexes that depend on the sum of the different energies consumed by the material during the impact rupture process. The results of the evaluation of these two indexes during CHARPY tests are presented in Fig. 6. This figure shows that the CHARPY impact strength and specific absorbed energy (SEA) of the PPS sample prepared with printing temperature at 340 °C are higher than the impact strength of the other samples.
CHARPY test results by nozzle temperature
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
These results can be explained by the fact that impact resistance depends on the overall state of resistance and plasticity of the material. Indeed, increasing the plasticity of a material can considerably improve its impact resistance. Therefore, printing the sample at a temperature of 340 °C causes lower crystallinity of the sample and larger amorphous regions. This increases the ductility and toughness of the sample, which ultimately manifests as high impact strength.
To investigate the damage produced after the tests for the tested specimens, Fig. 7 illustrates examples of the damaged specimens after the CHARPY test.
Tested specimens after CHARPY test
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
In order to analyse the distribution of these damaged specimens after rupture in the simple impact tests, we obtained fractographic images of the damaged areas using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We observed that the cross-sectional section of the damaged area remained unchanged in shape and configuration, and there were no significant modifications in the condition or distribution of the filaments after the CHARPY tests, even when the nozzle temperature was changed. Examples of these cross section test specimens are shown in Fig. 8.
Cross sectional SEM images of the tested specimens after CHARPY test
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
3.2 Impact test results
During repeated impact tests, the progression of the number of impacts (between the impactor and the specimen) necessary for complete rupture of the specimen, defined by the total penetration of the impactor into the tested sample, is shown in Fig. 9 for PPS samples produced at printing temperatures of 320 °C, 330 °C, 340 °C and 350 °C. According to findings, the PPS samples were produced at printing temperature of 340 °C and exhibit the highest number of impacts, resulting in the complete rupture of the specimen.
Evolution of the number of impacts for the total rupture of the specimen as a function of nozzle temperature
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
The evolution of this ratio is illustrated in Fig. 10 as a function of the printing temperature. Examination of these results shows that a printing temperature of 340 °C gives the highest initial energy absorption rate after first impact (RAI) for the 3D Printed PPS samples. The results of the impacts present in Figs 9 and 10 confirm the results obtained in the simple impact tests.
Evolution of the rate of absorption of initial energy after the 1st impact (RAI) as a function of nozzle temperature
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
After conducting the impact test, we examined the damaged specimens. Figure 11 shows examples of the damage caused by the repeated impact test. Similar to the CHARPY tests, we used scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to obtain detailed images of the damaged areas. We found that despite modifying the nozzle temperature, the shape, configuration, and filament distribution of the damaged area remained largely unchanged. An illustration of these cross-sectional samples can be found in Fig. 12.
Tested specimens after repeated impact tests
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
Cross sectional SEM images of the tested specimens after repeated impact test
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00876
4 Conclusion
This paper studied the effect of printing temperature and printing layer direction on the mechanical performance properties of 3D printing PPS. We performed CHARPY and repeated impact loading tests on printed PPS samples in the nozzle temperature range (320–340 °C). CHARPY testing revealed that samples with a stacking sequence (0/0) had the highest impact strength and highest specific absorbed energy (SEA). This sequence, printed horizontally perpendicular to the direction of impact loading, was used to test different samples with different printing temperatures in single and repeated impact tests. The results revealed that samples printed at 340 °C exhibited higher CHARPY impact resistance, specific absorbed energy (SEA), and number of impacts for complete sample failure. Thus, printing at 340 °C optimizes the impact resistance of PPS samples, thus improving the plasticity and overall strength of the material. Fractographic analyses showed no significant modification in the arrangement of the filaments after the tests, despite the temperature variations during the impact tests.
This study can be enriched by other potential future work. For example, one can consider the influence of other printing parameters such as printing speed and layer thickness on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) using the same dynamic tests (single impact and repeated impact).
References
- [1]↑
G. E. Luckachan and C. Pillai, “Biodegradable polymers-a review on recent trends and emerging perspectives,” J. Polym. Environ., vol. 19, pp. 637–676, 2011.
- [2]
G. Chen, A. K. Mohanty, and M. Misra, “Progress in research and applications of Polyphenylene Sulfide blends and composites with carbons,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 209, 2021, Art no. 108553.
- [3]
A. J. Ali, Z. S. Toor, M. Shifa, and O. Manzoor, “Root cause analysis of glass fiber-reinforced polymer composite pipe failed in marine environment,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev. Avr., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-024-01926-6.
- [4]↑
A. S. Rahate, K. R. Nemade, and S. A. Waghuley, “Polyphenylene sulfide (PPS): state of the art and applications,” Rev. Chem. Eng., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 471–489, 2013.
- [5]↑
Y. Gao, X. Zhou, M. Zhang, L. Lyu, and Z. Li, “Polyphenylene sulfide-based membranes: recent progress and future perspectives,” Membranes, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 924, 2022.
- [6]↑
A. El Magri, S. Vaudreuil, K. El Mabrouk, and M. E. Touhami, “Printing temperature effects on the structural and mechanical performances of 3D printed Poly-(phenylene sulfide) material,” in présenté à IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing, 2020, p. 012001.
- [7]
H. Baş, S. Elevli, and F. Yapıcı, “Fault tree analysis for fused filament fabrication type three-dimensional printers,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1389–1400, oct. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-019-00735-6.
- [8]
A. El Magri and S. Vaudreuil, “Optimizing the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PLA-graphene composite using response surface methodology,” Arch. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 112, no. 1, 2021.
- [9]
P. Wang, B. Zou, H. Xiao, S. Ding, and C. Huang, “Effects of printing parameters of fused deposition modeling on mechanical properties, surface quality, and microstructure of PEEK,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., vol. 271, pp. 62–74, 2019.
- [10]
A. El Magri, S. Vaudreuil, A. Ben Ayad, A. El Hakimi, R. El Otmani, and D. Amegouz, “Effect of printing parameters on tensile, thermal and structural properties of 3D‐printed poly (ether ketone ketone) PEKK material using fused deposition modeling,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 140, no. 29, 2023, Art no. e54078.
- [11]↑
P. Yeole, A. A. Hassen, S. Kim, J. Lindahl, V. Kunc, A. Franc, and U. Vaidya, “Mechanical characterization of high-temperature carbon fiber-polyphenylene sulfide composites for large area extrusion deposition additive manufacturing,” Addit. Manuf., vol. 34, 2020, Art no. 101255.
- [12]↑
Y. Lyu, J. Wu, H. Zhang, C. M. Ó. Brádaigh, and D. Yang, “Effects of thermal process conditions on crystallinity and mechanical properties in material extrusion additive manufacturing of discontinuous carbon fibre reinforced polyphenylene sulphide composites,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 57, no. 24, pp. 3775–3787, 2023.
- [13]↑
J. Hu, S. Mubarak, K. Li, X. Huang, W. Huang, D. Zhuo, Y. Li, L. Wu, and J. Wang, “The micro–macro interlaminar properties of continuous carbon fiber-reinforced polyphenylene sulfide laminates made by thermocompression to simulate the consolidation process in FDM,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 301, 2022.
- [14]↑
J. Retolaza, K. Gondra, R. Ansola, and A. Allue, “Mechanical research to optimize parameter selection for PPS material processed by FDM,” Mater. Manuf. Process., vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 1332–1338, 2022.
- [15]
H. Luo, H. Yang, L. Xi, B. Liao, and K. Bo, “Effect of printing velocity on the microscopic void distribution of 3D-printed short-fiber-reinforced composites,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1085–1090, 2022. juin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-022-01399-5.
- [16]
A. El Magri, S. Vanaei, and S. Vaudreuil, “An overview on the influence of process parameters through the characteristic of 3D-printed PEEK and PEI parts,” High Perform. Polym., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 862–880, 2021.
- [17]↑
V. Shanmugam, O. Das, K. Babu, U. Marimuthu, A. Veerasimman, D. J. Johnson, R. E. Neisiany, M. S. Hedenqvist, S. Ramakrishna, and F. Berto, “Fatigue behaviour of FDM-3D printed polymers, polymeric composites and architected cellular materials,” Int. J. Fatigue, vol. 143, févr. 2021, Art no. 106007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.106007.
- [18]↑
A. El Magri, K. El Mabrouk, S. Vaudreuil, and M. Ebn Touhami, “Experimental investigation and optimization of printing parameters of 3D printed polyphenylene sulfide through response surface methodology,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 138, no. 1, 2021, Art no. 49625.
- [19]↑
Y. Tao, F. Kong, Z. Li, J. Zhang, X. Zhao, Q. Yin, D. Xing, and P. Li, “A review on voids of 3D printed parts by fused filament fabrication,” J. Mater. Res. Technol., vol. 15, pp. 4860–4879, 2021.
