Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Comparative investigation on selective laser sintering and multi jet fusion of polyamide 12
Authors: Loo, Jordan Yong Xing
Keywords: Engineering::Mechanical engineering
Issue Date: 2020
Publisher: Nanyang Technological University
Project: B277
Abstract: Additive manufacturing (AM) research development as well as its usage has been growing over the past few years. The process of 3D printing, otherwise called AM, starts from a three-dimensional design using computer-aided design (CAD) software and parts fabricated are usually build in a layer by layer method. Among the several methods/processes of powder-bed fusion techniques, the selective laser sintering (SLS) has been in the AM market for some time and is one of the few common AM techniques. Unlike the multi-jet fusion (MJF) method, which was developed recently by HP, which shows great potential in producing quality, functional parts with an optimised productivity. Both the SLS and MJF have very similar processes. The main difference between the two process being the additional agent for the MJF as well as the heat source, this brings about differences in fabricated samples of both processes. Through this project, a better understanding of the difference between SLS and MJF, in terms of their procedure of material fabrication, mechanical and thermal properties of fabricated part, and printing quality of the fabricated part, will be provided. In this project, the tensile strength, flexural strength, thermal properties, surface roughness, porosity and printing accuracy of samples built by the SLS and MJF process, were determined. The fabrication orientation for both processes has its difference, where certain build orientation would affect the tensile and flexural strength of the fabricated sample. The temperature allowance, the range between the points of melting and crystallisation, for both the EOS PA2200 (used by the SLS) and HP 3D HR PA12 (used by the MJF) were very close, however the MJF process had an even smaller temperature allowance of 35.32 °C, as compared to the SLS process of 40.52°C. In the surface roughness test, it was shown that, in contrast to the production from MJF, the SLS produced a slightly smoother top surface (RaSLS = 17, RaMJF = 21) but a rougher side (RaSLS = 30, RaMJF=13) and front surface (RaSLS = 30, RaMJF = 16). Moreover, in the porosity analysis, it was found that SLS produces samples with more void voxel and defect volume than that of MJF. MJF also shown that its printing accuracy was better than SLS.
Fulltext Permission: restricted
Fulltext Availability: With Fulltext
Appears in Collections:MAE Student Reports (FYP/IA/PA/PI)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FYP Report_LooYongXingJordan (Final).pdf
  Restricted Access
1.72 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Page view(s)

Updated on Jan 29, 2023


Updated on Jan 29, 2023

Google ScholarTM


Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.