CHAPTER

I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Additive Manufacturing

Over the years, additive manufacturing (AM) or three-dimensional (3D) printing is being
used innovatively in several areas, which includes fabrication of complex parts, medical
devices and household products. In recent years, one of the interesting outputs of this
emerging technology is the use of low-cost technology such as fused deposition
modelling (FDM) for fabricating end use products as shown in Figure 1.1. The current 3D
printing industry demands high quality filaments in order to satisfy the requirements of
engineering application. However, 3D printed parts using neat polymer is expected to
have weaker mechanical properties and less durability due to possible thermal
degradation during multiple processing.

FIGURE 1.1: Flow work of 3D printing process [1]

1
Globally, the use of metal fillers to reinforce polymeric material have engrossed much
consideration because of their appreciable thermo-mechanical stability, easy synthesis
process and better strength to weight ratio. These composites have largely been used in
the field of aerospace, energy industries, bioengineering, construction and
nanotechnology [2-6]. However, development of highly complex structures using
conventional manufacturing methods have their own limitations. Hence, in this project,
we propose to use metal fillers to increase strength of 3D printed composites, which can
be used in weight-sensitive applications.

1.2 Fused Deposition Modelling

Fused deposition modelling (FDM) generates a component by layering extruded material

sequentially from a nozzle [1], [2]. The FDM method is based on the same basic premise
that underpins all other additive manufacturing (AM) processes, which is a standard
process chain in the FDM process (see Fig. 1.2). In this technique, a digital model of the
desired part is created using any modelling software, and then translated to a machine-
readable STL (stereolithography) file. The slicing of the model is done in a slicing
software, into a number of 2D cross-sections, which are subsequently sent to the 3D
printer for part fabrication. The definition of all process parameters is done in proprietary
software provided specifically for each of the AM processes. The support structure, its
volume, and location are calculated based on the complexity of part and thickness of each
of its sections.

Process Parameters
Making STL file of
CAD Model Creation selection (Pre
cad model
Processing)

Slicing the model Part fabrication Post processing

2
 FIGURE 1.2: Process chain for fabricating 3D printed parts
To sustain the overhung structures, support structures are sometimes positioned between
the layers as well. Figure 1.3 depicts a simplified schematic of the FDM machine.
Material in the form of filament is extracted from a spool and directed into a liquefier,
which is heated by an encircling heater coil. Through extrusion melted materials, are
ejected via nozzle and layered over the build plate by two spools: the support material
spool and the part material spool. Polycarbonate (PC), PC-ABS, ABS (acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene), and PC-ISO are common engineering-grade polymers used for part
fabrication. As technology evolves, and with advancement in materials study, more
materials, such as ceramic slurry and metals, are being investigated for use in FDM,
although nozzle diameter size becomes a bottleneck parameter [1-6].

FIGURE 1.3: FDM based 3D printing technology

The mould and die industries, tooling sector, vehicles, casting industries, and medical
implants are all important areas of use. However, industrial FDM applications require
higher dimensional accuracy, smoother surface of the printed product, and much higher
mechanical strength, and FDM technology is unable to achieve the uniformity in part
characteristics, process ability, and part accuracy due to their excessive dependency on
3
process parameters such as layer height, orientation of the build plate, and speed of
printing the 3D part. The proper selection of these parameters in light of the different
process requirements is a significant problem. A fundamental grasp of the FDM process
is required to reduce variance in component quality and process dependability. Overall, it
can be stated that the major benefits of using FDM include the range of materials that can
be processed by this technology and the resulting mechanical characteristics of the
fabricated parts in comparison to other additive manufacturing methods.

1.3 Scope of Research

 Additive manufacturing is a leading emerging technology for future industrial

development to produce robust components.
 High quality 3D printing feedstock is the current demand of 3D printing industry
for weight-sensitive applications.
 Sustainable utilization of fillers in small-scale to produce 3D printed composite will
minimize the use of neat polymers for 3D printing applications

4
 CHAPTER
II
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous Studies on FDM

This literature review provides background information on the use 3D printing and associated
technology for different applications. This section provides the detailed information on the use
of various fillers used to improve the quality of 3D printed parts. The previous work of various
researchers has been summarized in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1: Literature review on 3D printed polymeric composites

Sl. No Matri Reinforcement Key findings Ref.
x

1. PLA Carbon Tensile, micro-hardness, flexural, [7]

storage modulus, and glass transition

temperature increased by 31%, 66%,
21%, 17%, and 3 0C, respectively, at 15
weight percentages.
2. PLA Bleached Kraft T.S., T.M., T. Strain. and I.S. increased [8]
pulp by 18%,6%,81% and 26% respectively.
3. PLA lignin Yield and I.S. enhanced by 79% and [9]
126% respectively.
4. PLA Bamboo flour T.S., T.M., and I.S., improved by 44%, [10]
135% and 38% respectively.
5. PLA Wood T. Strain, T.S., bending modulus and [11]
bending strength are increased by 17%,
9% ,11%, and 6% respectively.

6. PLA Carbon fiber Maximum T.S. of 288.65 GPa and [12]

highest elastic modulus of 29.12 GPa.
5
 7. ABS Carbon F.S. and T.S. increased by 18.7% and [13]
70%, respectively.

8. ABS Carbon F.S., T.S., and flexural modulus [14]

improved by 18.7%, 15.4% and 3.2%
respectively.
9. ABS OMMT T.S. increased by 44%, while Tensile [15]
modulus increased by 200%,
10. ABS BN flakes Thermal conductivity of samples [16]
increased due to increase in filler
content.

11. ABS Jute-fiber Tensile modulus improved by 1%, [17]

while UTS reduced by 9%.

2.2 Summary of Literature Review

From the above literature review, it may be deduced that FDM has been a centre of attraction
for the researchers. All the studies have given a significant importance to the use of
reinforcement to improve the strength of 3D printed parts fabricated by FDM process. In
today’s industry, requirement of parts that can be generated at a super-fast pace with
compromising its quality and functionality, is at its peak. FDM is proving to be the technology
that can fulfil these aspirations of the industry. However, in order to fulfil the needs to the
today’s world the parts fabricated by this process needs to be more precise, accurate, and with
optimal functionality. Thus, deeper research on the impact of the control factors over the
mechanical responses and functionality of the components fabricated by FDM process is
required. FDM is from long ago practicing fabrication using single material, and now going
through major changes for industries like aerospace by transforming into multi material
(composites) printing with never experienced before design opportunities. Therefore, the need
to explore the use of different fillers (i.e., metallic reinforcement) based composite materials as
a feed stock filament in FDM process is required.

2.3 Research Gaps

6
  It is found that parts fabricated from composite polymer have better mechanical
properties (i.e., strength) than those fabricated with neat polymer.
 Majority of research work on 3D printed polymer composites is based on few
polymer/composites; however, this area is still available for future research work with
more filler material, polymer matrix and mechanical properties combinations to expand
the use of additive manufacturing in weight sensitive structures.
 Many researchers have reported their work in the area of FDM by use of various fillers
such as Carbon, Glass, Graphene, Kevlar etc, on the properties of 3D printed polymer
composites, however the use of metallic powder such as aluminum to reinforce polymer
material such as PETG has not been explored yet.
 There is a lack in research efforts related to the investigations structure-property
correlations for PETG composites using Aluminum fillers. Therefore, this is to be
explored.

2.4 Research Objectives

 To develop PETG based 3D printing materials by varying the aluminium content (wt.
%) by optimising extrusion process.
 To fabricate aluminium reinforced PETG composite specimens under optimal FFF
operating conditions.
 To investigate the influence of the aluminium wt.% reinforcement on the physico-
mechanical properties of 3D printed PETG composites.

2.5 Importance of Study

This study has been carried out to study the physical and mechanical behaviour of 3D printed
PETG composites reinforced with aluminium particles for weight-sensitive applications. This
study is useful for various AM users to fabricate parts with metal-reinforced polymer for
engineering applications.

7
8
 CHAPTER
III
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Experimental Methodology

This project follows a structured approach to design, manufacture, and test a 3D- printed
composite specimens for weight sensitive applications. This section includes the material
and methodology employed for developing feedstock’s composite filament, fabrication of
test specimens, and experimental procedures followed for their characterization as shown
in Figure 3.1.

FIGURE 3.1: Experimental methodology adopted for current research work

3.2 Work Materials

This study explored the use of metallic filler such as aluminum powder to develop PETG based
lightweight composites. A few trial experiments were conducted to develop suitable filaments
for 3D printing applications. PETG stands for Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol. It is an
amorphous thermoplastic polymer that belongs to the co-polyester family. It is a combination

9
of PET and glycol, having a monoisotopic mass of 300 Da (Daltons) and a C14H20O5S

molecular formula, as shown in Figure 3.2. PETG is a transparent and durable material with
excellent chemical resistance. PETG is known for its clarity and the ability to withstand higher
temperatures than other 3D printing materials like PLA (Polylactic Acid). Critical features of
PETG include its low shrinkage. Aluminum powder (reinforcement) as shown in Figure 3.3 is a
light, silvery-white powder that has many properties, including strength, thermal conductivity,
and flammability.

FIGURE 3.2: PETG as a matrix material FIGURE 3.3: Aluminum powder

Applications of PETG
 Used in cooking oil cantainers and water bottles.
 Used in medical device packaging and implants.
 Retail display and graphic arts markets.
 High impact and temperature sustain application.

3.3 Extrusion of Filaments

The process of converting PETG into a feedstock filament and part fabrication via 3D printing
has been shown in Figure 3.1. Materials were kept in an oven (hot air) kept at 80 °C for twelve
hours. After drying, Aluminium powder is mixed with neat PETG in required weight
proportion to make blend batched as shown in Table 3.1. A single screw extruder is used to
develop filaments Prior to extrusion, a temperature of 280 °C is set for 30 minutes to remove
moisture from the extruder barrel. Afterwards, the temperature of extruder is set to the required
temperature for extrusion. In that process, some hit and trial experiments were performed with
the work material to achieve the optimal extrusion temperature. After achieving optimal

10
extrusion temperature as shown in Table 3.1, then work material in batch of 60 gram each were
fed into the hopper.

The rotating screw is set at 40 rpm, and material was extruded through a nozzle of diameter
1.75 mm. The produced filaments with different compositions are shown in Figure 3.4.

TABLE 3.1: Details of developed composite filaments

Sample batch PETG weight% Al. weight% Extrusion temp. (℃)

P0 100 0 185-195
P1 97.5 2.5 220-230
P2 95 5 220-230
P3 90 10 220-230
P4 87.5 12.5 220-230

P5 85 15 220-230
P6 80 20 220-230

FIGURE 3.4: Extruded 3D printing filaments

3.4 Selection of FDM Printing Conditions

FDM involves various processing conditions, which need to be adjusted before printing as
shown in Figure 3.5. These parameters play important role for deciding the final part quality.
Some of the important parameters have been highlighted hereunder.

11
 Layer height: Each layer to be printer has some thickness, this thickness is called layer
height and is measured along the vertical axis. Layer thickness depends on the nozzle
diameter of the printer. Layer thickness significantly affects the part quality in terms of
surface roughness, dimensional accuracy and mechanical properties.
 Nozzle temperature: It is the temperature of the extruder nozzle that is set for a
particular part to be printed. The machine has the maximum temperature limit of 250 °C
for the nozzle. The nozzle temperature has to be set precisely for better prints depending
on the type of filament used, otherwise defects like warping may occur in the prints.
 Infill density: The infill percent directly affects the mechanical characteristics of the
fabricated part. Also, as the infill density increases the time taken to fabricate the part
also increases. Minimum infill percent can be taken as 10 and maximum as 100.
 Print speed: The velocity at which the material is extruded from the extruder nozzle is
called print speed. Higher print speed may cause the filament misrun, whereas very
slow print speed can cause the accumulation of material on the nozzle (nozzle clogging)
and the specimen may get damaged.
 Raster angle: The tool path angle at which the material gets deposited with respect to
build table x axis is called raster angle. The raster angle value is between 0 to 90° or 0
to -90°. This factor is very much significant is influencing the mechanical
characteristics of the printed part.

12
 Layer
Thickness

Raster Angle Nozzle Temp

FDM

Infill
Print Speed
Percentage

FIGURE 3.5: Key FDM process Parameters

Based on literature and trial experiments, the FDM parameters were fixed for experimentation
using the developed composite filaments. The selected printing conditions are shown in Table
3.2. AL/PETG filaments were employed to fabricate specimens (See Figure 3.6) using an FDM
machine.

TABLE 3.2: Selected 3D printing input process parameters

Parameters Value

Nozzle temperature (℃) 260

Infill pattern Rectilinear
Print bed temperature (℃) 90
Raster Angle 0
Print Speed (mm/s) 55
Nozzle diameter (mm) 0.6
Cooling Fan Speed (%) 50
Layer thickness (mm) 0.2
Infill percentage (%) 100

13
 FIGURE 3.6: 3D printing of samples

3.5 Fabrication of Test Samples

Solid Works is used to create a CAD (Computer-aided design) model of the tensile and flexural
specimen using ASTM D-638 (American Society for Testing and Materials) and ASTM D-790
standard, respectively. These CAD models will be fed to the slicing software for slicing. After
modifying the process parameters, slicing of the model is done for each individual setting.
After that, we will get the G-code file will be transported to the printer for part fabrication.
After printing the samples will be subjected to tensile and flexural testing accordingly. Before
the fabrication of specimens as shown in Figure 3.7, the filament was dried in oven for 2-3
hours at temperature of 60 C to get rid of moisture content from the material. FDM printer was
used for 3D printing of the specimens. Table 3.2 illustrates the list of FDM input process
parameters considered for part fabrication as per different ASTM standards. The average time
for printing one sample is 20-25 minutes.

14
 FIGURE 3.7: 3D printed samples

During printing of samples with the proposed composite material, a few common problems
were encountered while fabricating samples which are as follows:

 Clogging: It is the sudden deposition of a large chunk filament at a point in the printed
part or gradual gathering of the filament at a particular point that distorts the prints. This
may happen due to uneven flow rate, uneven diameter of the filament, inadequate
distance between the nozzle and print bed or when suddenly electricity cuts off. When
there is very less distance between the nozzle and the print bed the filament gets
accumulated in the nozzle, and when the nozzle moves through an empty space or when
it completes a layer and retracts to print another layer, this chunk may come out of the
nozzle and sticks to printed part. If this material remains in the nozzle, it may cause
nozzle clogging.

 Stringing: it is the phenomena where hair-like strings can be seen in the printed part.
These strings of plastic sticks to then solidifies and sticks to the printed part. The main
reason behind stringing is incorrect amount of retraction happening in the printer and
the higher nozzle temperature than required. The retraction is required when the nozzle
is moving over empty spaces where the material is not required to be printed or when
printing of 1 layer is finished and for printing next layer nozzle moves to a specified

15
 place.

 Warping: When the printed layer cools down unevenly, the printed part curl upwards,
this process is called warping. This may happen due uneven temperature of the print
bed, very low print bed temperature, impurities in the print bed, printing speed is too
high, or the inadequate environmental conditions where printing is taking place.

3.6 Physical and Mechanical Characterization

The tensile and flexural specimens were subjected to mechanical loading using Instron-5969
having maximum load capacity of 50 kN. The cross-head movement selected for tensile and
flexural test were 1mm/min and the atmospheric condition was at 50% humidity and 21°C
temperature. The specimen was fixed between the mechanical grips which at 5 kN load cell.
The clamping grips of specimen was wrapped with thick paper to protect the printed parts. The
average cross-sectional area and the thickness of specimens were recorded using vernier
calliper for the evaluation of mechanical properties. Likewise, flexural specimens were
subjected to three-point bend test using the same machine with little customization. The
experimentation conditions were shown in Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9. Furthermore, hardness of
samples were measured using Shore-D hardness test as per ASTM D2240 standard. The ASTM
D2734-94 standard and was used to determine the amount of porosity included in the composite
parts.

16
 FIGURE 3.8: Tensile specimens and flexural specimens during the mechanical loading

FIGURE 3.9: Density measurement of 3D-printed parts

3.7 Optical Microscopy

The inspection of failure mode of tensile specimens was done using optical microscopy. The
fractured surface of the specimens after tensile and flexural tests were used for morphological
investigations.

17
 CHAPTER
IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Overview

This chapter systematically presents the experimental findings of aluminum-reinforced PETG

composites, beginning with filament characterization and progressing through comprehensive
testing of 3D printed specimens. The results are organized to clearly demonstrate the effects of
aluminum filler content (0-20 wt%) on material properties.

4.2 Results and Discussion

4.2.1 Tensile Properties of Composite Filaments

Figure 4.1 illustrates the tensile stress–strain behavior of 3D-printed composite filaments with
varying aluminum (Al) content. The graph shows significant variation in both peak tensile
strength and ductility depending on Al loading. At 2.5% Al, the material exhibits the highest
tensile strength (~34 MPa) and moderate ductility, indicating strong bonding and minimal
voids. However, at 5% and 7.5%, both strength and elongation drop notably, suggesting poor
layer adhesion or filler agglomeration that likely hinders stress transfer and initiates early
failure. As Al content increases to 10% and 12.5%, the curves indicate better stability and
improved ductility, though the peak strength remains lower than the 2.5% sample. This could
be due to improved filler dispersion and more uniform stress distribution. At 15% Al, the
filament demonstrates remarkable ductility, maintaining consistent tensile stress across a large
strain range, which implies enhanced energy absorption and flexibility. However, 20% Al
shows a drastic drop in both strength and elongation, possibly due to excessive filler disrupting
the polymer matrix, resulting in weak interlayer bonding and brittle failure. Overall, 2.5% Al
offers the highest tensile strength, while 15% Al provides the best ductility, suggesting a trade-
off between rigidity and flexibility depending on application needs.

18
 FIGURE 4.1: Tensile stress-strain curve of filament

4.2.2 Tensile Properties of 3D Printed Composites

The tensile stress–strain curve for 3D-printed samples with varying aluminum content shows
clear differences in mechanical response as presented in Figure 4.2. The sample with 2.5% Al
achieves the highest tensile strength, indicating excellent bonding and material integrity. As the
aluminum content increases to 5% and 7.5%, both strength and ductility decline, likely due to
poor dispersion or weakened interlayer adhesion. Samples with 10% and 12.5% Al exhibit
more stable performance, suggesting improved filler distribution and stress transfer. At 15%
Al, the material demonstrates a broad stress–strain plateau, indicating enhanced energy
absorption, but the strength remains lower than the 2.5% sample. The 20% Al sample shows
premature failure, suggesting overloading of the matrix and compromised mechanical integrity.

19
 FIGURE 4.2: Tensile stress-strain curve of samples

Ductility decreases consistently with increasing aluminium content. The 2.5% Al sample shows
the highest elongation before failure, reflecting good flexibility and interlayer bonding. In
contrast, samples with 15% and 20% Al display brittle fracture behavior with minimal
deformation, pointing to increased stiffness but reduced toughness. Failure mechanisms shift
from ductile to brittle as Al content increases. Low Al samples (2.5%–7.5%) undergo
significant plastic deformation before failure, while higher Al samples (15%–20%) break more
abruptly, likely due to stress concentrations and disrupted matrix continuity. Overall,
aluminium content significantly influences tensile properties. While 2.5% Al offers superior
strength and flexibility, 10%–12.5% provides a reasonable trade-off between rigidity and
ductility. Exceeding 15% leads to brittleness and mechanical decline, emphasizing the need to
optimize filler content based on performance requirements.

20
4.2.3 Flexural Properties of 3D Printed Composites

The flexural stress–strain curves shown in the Figure 4.3 offer a clear look at how the
mechanical behavior of 3D-printed samples changes with different aluminum (Al) content.

FIGURE 4.3: Flexural stress-strain curve of samples

This analysis is based directly on the patterns observed in the graph, which compares samples
ranging from 2.5% to 20% Al. In the lower Al range—2.5% to 7.5%—the curves rise gradually
and peak smoothly before tapering off, indicating that these materials are more flexible and can
handle some bending before failing. The 5% Al sample stands out in the graph with a strong,
steady peak, suggesting a good balance between strength and bendability. At 10% Al, the curve
reaches the highest point on the graph, meaning this composition offers the best resistance to
bending. It handles stress well and maintains form before dropping off, making it a strong
candidate for applications where both stiffness and durability matter. As the Al content
continues to increase beyond 10%, the curves become more jagged and unpredictable. The
lines for the 12.5%, 15%, and 20% samples shoot up quickly but drop just as fast, which is
typical of brittle materials. These samples are stiffer but tend to break without much warning
21
once they reach their limit. The steepness of the early part of each curve—known as the
flexural modulus—also grows with higher Al content, which tells us the material is getting
stiffer. But the 20% Al sample, while initially strong, shows a sharp and early drop, meaning it
loses its structure quickly when pushed too far. From what’s visible in the graph, it’s clear that
aluminum content has a big impact on how these materials handle bending forces. While more
Al can make parts stiffer and stronger, it also makes them more prone to snapping. The 10% Al
sample appears to offer the best mix of strength and flexibility, based on its stable and high-
reaching curve.

4.2.4 Density of 3D Printed Composites

Figure 4.4 shows how varying the aluminum (Al) content in the filament affects the density of
3D-printed samples. At 2.5% Al, the density is quite low (0.85 g/cm³), but it jumps to 1.75
g/cm³ at 5%, likely due to better material flow and stronger layer bonding. However, the
density drops at 7.5% Al (0.833 g/cm³), possibly due to uneven Al dispersion or poor fusion
between layers.

FIGURE 4.4: Density analysis of samples

The values rise again at 10% and 12.5% Al (1.266 and 1.6 g/cm³, respectively), suggesting that
this range supports better bonding and compaction. Beyond 12.5%, the density drops off again,
22
with 15% and 20% Al giving lower values (1.15 and 0.95 g/cm³). This could be due to excess
Al causing print defects, weak interlayer adhesion, or internal voids. Overall, the sweet spot for
achieving higher, more consistent density appears to be between 5% and 12.5% Al, where the
material balance seems just right for good printing performance.

4.2.5 Shore D Hardness of 3D Printed Composites

Figure 4.5 illustrates the variation in Shore D hardness of 3D-printed samples with increasing
aluminum (Al) content, measured on both shining and rough surfaces. For the shining side,
hardness remains relatively stable around 75 up to 5% Al, then dips to 72 at 7.5%, possibly due
to reduced interlayer fusion or poor dispersion.

FIGURE 4.5: Shore D Hardness for Shining and Rough side of the samples

As Al content increases to 15%, the hardness steadily improves, peaking at 78, suggesting
optimal reinforcement and material compaction. However, a noticeable drop to 71 at 20% Al
may indicate overloading, leading to poor matrix continuity and weak interfacial bonding. The
rough side shows a similar trend with generally lower values. Starting at 71, it declines to 68 at
7.5%, followed by a sharp increase to 75 at 15%, mirroring the behavior of the shining side.
23
The fall to 66 at 20% Al again supports the inference of diminishing mechanical integrity at
high filler content. Overall, the results indicate that 15% Al yields the highest hardness on both
surfaces, while values beyond this point lead to mechanical degradation, likely due to filler
saturation and compromised bonding.

4.2.6 Optical Microscopy

The optical microscopy images taken at 100x magnification (see Figure 4) offer a clear look
into the internal structure and quality of the 3D-printed samples. These micrographs reflect how
both the printing parameters and material composition influence the final build. In the first
image, a compact and tightly bonded structure is visible, with very few voids. This suggests
strong interlayer adhesion and efficient compaction during printing- likely the result of well-
tuned settings and balanced material flow. Such a structure is expected to perform well
mechanically. The second image shows a more distinct layering pattern, with small gaps visible
between some layers.

24
FIGURE 4.6: Optical images of the failed regions of 3D-printed flexural samples containing (a) 5% Al
(b) 10% Al (c) 12.5% Al (d) 20% Al

These gaps point to weaker bonding between layers, which could lower the overall strength and
flexibility of the part. It may indicate a need to fine-tune temperature or print speed to improve
adhesion. The third image has a more irregular appearance, with visible voids and stringy or
uneven features throughout. This could be a sign of inconsistent extrusion or poor material
flow, leading to higher porosity. These structural inconsistencies typically reduce durability and
may affect dimensional accuracy. The fourth image highlights a noticeably porous structure
with larger voids and fragmented regions. Such features usually result from insufficient thermal
bonding or interrupted material feed. Large gaps like these can significantly weaken the
sample, making it more prone to failure under stress. Overall, these images underscore how
microstructural differences-such as void distribution and interlayer fusion- can impact the
strength and reliability of 3D-printed parts. By closely analysing these details, printing
conditions can be better optimized to improve part quality and performance.

4.3 Case Study

This section covers the proposed case studies using the proposed Aluminum reinforced
composite materials for light weight structural applications.

4.3.1 Case Study-I: Bio-inspired Landing Gear

Based on our observations and findings, from our research to design, manufacture, and test a
3D- printed composite specimens for weight sensitive applications, we have moved forward to
implement the optimum density filament for few weight sensitive structures modelling as
shown n Figure 4.7. A spider's web is a marvel of structural effectiveness and functional
versatility found in nature. Because of its geometry, which is made up of concentric spirals and
radial spokes, it can tolerate dynamic stresses like tension, wind, and prey hit without failing
catastrophically. These webs can deform under pressure and then regain their original shape
because they are self-tensioning, redundantly supported, and have localized flexibility.

Design Highlights (Spider-web Pattern)

 Distributes landing forces evenly across the frame.
 Minimizes concentrated stress points, reducing risk of fracture.
 Natural redundancy in pattern improves reliability after minor damage.
25
Performance Benefits:
 Reduces landing shock to internal drone components.
 Maintains structural integrity during uneven or rough landings.
 Lightweight materials contribute to longer flight times.

Applications:

Ideal for UAVs used in delivery, reconnaissance, or environmental monitoring where landing
on variable terrain is common. For impact absorption, and stability during take-off and landing,
a model for drone-landing gear is being proposed by drawing inspiration from the cobweb
structure to emulate its structural integrity and flexibility. This gear structure is complex and
functional and better than the landing gears produced with traditional designs. The spokes and
spirals of the cobweb structure, can dissipate the load due to the presence of its multiple load
paths. Just like the suspension system, the structure would absorb the shocks upon landing and
provide smooth flexible landing of the gear.

26
 FIGURE 4.7: Proposed Spider-web based model for lightweight structural applications

Key features:

The internal network of intersecting spoke and spiral pieces in this extrusion creates a gear
landing body that is both hollow and lightweight while maintaining structural integrity. These
internal routes simulate how a genuine cobweb absorbs impacts and avoids localized stress
failure by offering numerous avenues for force redistribution. Even on uneven surfaces, the
arched shape improves lateral stability and resists compression. Because of its spring-like
flexibility, the gear can deform elastically and bounce back without becoming damaged. Rigid
support pillars are fastened to both ends of the curved cobweb tube to provide points of direct
ground contact. While the web-inspired arching segment absorbs and redistributes the kinetic
energy, these pillars serve to stabilize the drone and secure the structure during landing.

4.3.2 Case Study-II: Bio-inspired Floating Structure

A biologically designed model for creating buoyant, stable, and lightweight structures for
surface-level or underwater monitoring is provided by the water lily leaf. Because of its
naturally occurring architecture, it can float well, resist surface currents, and disperse weights
uniformly, which makes it perfect for supporting cameras, sensors, and communication devices
in aquatic settings. The design is flat and slightly conical towards the top to avoid the water
from accumulating in the leaf and allowing the water to flow downwards along the conical flat
shape. The base is flat and the edges are made with splines to mimic the leaf shape. A stem
could be attached to the base to incorporate camera or sensors for underwater monitoring.

Key Biomimetic Features Applied to Underwater Monitoring:

 Buoyancy and Hydrodynamic Stability: Without additional mass, the leaf is extremely
buoyant due to its natural aerenchym tissues. This idea is implemented in design by
employing low-density composite materials, hollow or foam-filled chambers, or both to
maintain neutral or positive buoyancy—essential for devices that need to remain close
to the surface or not sink.
 Broad, Flat Base for Platform Stability: As a result of surface agitation, the broad,
floating surface does not tilt or flip. For monitoring systems, this guarantees the stability
of mounted devices (such as cameras, GPS, and hydrophones) in areas with currents or
waves.
27
  Bio-Inspired Camouflage & Surface Integration:
The leaf’s shape and color blend naturally into aquatic environments. A biomimetic
design can use natural contours and colors to reduce visual and acoustic disturbance—
important for ecological studies or stealthy monitoring.

Potential Applications:

 Surface-drifting sensor platforms for water quality or wildlife tracking.

 Anchorable underwater camera mounts that float just below or at the surface.
 Solar-powered buoyant stations for remote data collection or relay.

FIGURE 4.8: Proposed water-lily based model

28
29
 CHAPTER
V
CONCLUSIONS AND
FUTURE SCOPE
5.1 Overview

3D printing allows for the creation of complex structures that cannot be fabricated with
traditional manufacturing processes. Characterization of 3D-printed samples involves
assessment of the material properties, including physical properties and mechanical properties,
etc., which essential for applications are ranging from prototyping to end-use parts fabrication.

5.2 Overall Conclusion

 Flexural Strength: The composite containing 10% Al demonstrated the highest flexural
strength at approximately 50.9 MPa, with a corresponding work of fracture of 9669 kJ/m².
Composites with Al content above 15% showed increased brittleness, with a notable
reduction in flexural strength by 18–22%.
 Tensile Properties: Peak tensile strength (34 MPa) and elongation at break (8.2%) were
recorded for the 2.5% Al sample. The 15% Al composite offered a favourable combination
of tensile strength (28 MPa) and moderate ductility (6.5%), suitable for semi-structural use.
 Shore D Hardness: Shore D hardness values exhibited a consistent increase with Al
concentration, reaching a maximum of 78 SHD at 15% loading, indicating enhanced
surface resistance.
 Density: Maximum density of 1.6 g/cm³ was achieved at 12.5% Al content, reflecting
efficient particle dispersion and reduced void formation.

 Microstructural Observations: Microscopy images confirmed uniform Al distribution in

samples up to 10% loading. However, at higher concentrations (15–20%), filler
agglomeration and increased porosity (up to 20%) were observed, negatively impacting
structural cohesion.

30
5.3 Material Optimization
The findings suggest that mechanical behavior can be finely controlled by adjusting Al content:

 10–12.5% Al: Ideal for applications requiring a balance of strength, stiffness, and
toughness.
 12.5–15% Al: Well-suited for components demanding high rigidity and surface
durability.
 2.5–5% Al: Maintains ductility and base polymer characteristics, making it appropriate
for flexible or impact-sensitive applications.
 Overall, this work establishes a clear correlation between aluminum filler content and
the resulting mechanical and structural performance of PETG composites, providing a
valuable framework for designing functional, load-bearing 3D-printed components with
targeted property profiles.

5.4 Potential Applications

Potential application for developed composites reinforced with aluminum are ideal for weight-
sensitive applications, offering lightweight, cost-effective, and eco-friendly solutions with high
specific strength. Their suitability for additive manufacturing enables the production of
complex, customized components with enhanced performance in buoyancy, and impact
resistance. By tailoring density and properties through varying aluminum content, these
composites are particularly valuable in automotive, aerospace, and marine interiors, where
weight reduction is crucial.

5.5 Future Scope

The present study demonstrates the successful development of feedstock filament for 3D-
printed composites using aluminum as a filler material. The findings and future directions
outlined in this work provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners aiming to
advance this field further.

 Surface Modification of aluminum powder particles: Investigating surface treatments

for aluminum to enhance their adhesion with the PETG polymer matrix. Enhanced
31
 adhesion can lead to composites with superior mechanical properties and better wear
resistance.

 Theoretical Modeling: Developing a robust theoretical model for analyzing 3D-printed

composites will provide a framework for comparing experimental data and predicting
material behavior under different conditions. Such models will be instrumental for
engineers and designers in optimizing composite properties for specific applications,
reducing trial-and-error experimentation.

32
33
REFERENCES

1. Mishra V, Negi S, Kar S, Sharma AK, Rajbahadur YNK, Kumar A (2022) Recent
advances in fused deposition modeling Fused Deposition Modeling based additive
manufacturing of thermoplastic composite structures: A review. J Thermoplast Compos
Mater 0:1–39.
2. Z. Weng, J. Wang, T. Senthil, and L. Wu, “Mechanical and thermal properties of
ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling 3D printing,”
Mater. Des., vol. 102, pp. 276–283, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.04.045.
3. T. J. Quill et al., “Thermal and mechanical properties of 3D printed boron nitride –
ABS composites,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1205–1217, 2018, doi:
10.1007/s10443-017-9661-1.
4. A. R. Torrado Perez, D. A. Roberson, and R. B. Wicker, “Fracture surface analysis of
3D-printed tensile specimens of novel ABS-based materials,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol.
14, no. 3, pp. 343–353, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11668-014-9803-9.
5. K. Shi, Y. Yan, H. Mei, C. Chen, and L. Cheng, “3D printing Kevlar fiber layer
distributions and fiber orientations into nylon composites to achieve designable
mechanical strength,” Addit. Manuf., vol. 39, no. February, pp. 0–3, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.addma.2021.101882.
6. J. M. Chacón, M. A. Caminero, P. J. Núñez, E. García-Plaza, I. García-Moreno, and J.
M. Reverte, “Additive manufacturing of continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic
composites using fused deposition modelling: Effect of process parameters on
mechanical properties,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 181, no. May, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.107688.
7. V. C. Gavali, P. R. Kubade, and H. B. Kulkarni, “Property Enhancement of Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites Prepared by Fused Deposition Modeling,”
Mater. Today Proc., vol. 23, pp. 221–229, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.020.
8. H. Peltola, K. Immonen, L. S. Johansson, J. Virkajärvi, and D. Sandquist, “Influence of
pulp bleaching and compatibilizer selection on performance of pulp fiber reinforced
PLA biocomposites,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 136, no. 37, pp. 1–12, 2019, doi:

34
 10.1002/app.47955.
9. A. Kumar, V. R. Tumu, S. Ray Chowdhury, and R. R. Ramana, “A green physical
approach to compatibilize a bio-based poly (lactic acid)/lignin blend for better
mechanical, thermal and degradation properties,” Int. J. Biol. Macromol., vol. 121, pp.
588–600, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.057.
10. Y. N. Wang, Y. X. Weng, and L. Wang, “Characterization of interfacial compatibility
of polylactic acid and bamboo flour (PLA/BF) in biocomposites,” Polym. Test., vol. 36,
pp. 119–125, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2014.04.001.
11. L. Zhang, S. Lv, C. Sun, L. Wan, H. Tan, and Y. Zhang, “Effect of MAH-g-PLA on
the Properties of Wood Fiber/Polylactic Acid Composites,” Polymers (Basel)., vol. 9,
no. 11, pp. 5–8, 2017, doi: 10.3390/polym9110591.
12. F. Wang, Z. Zhang, F. Ning, G. Wang, and C. Dong, “A mechanistic model for tensile
property of continuous carbon fiber reinforced plastic composites built by fused
filament fabrication,” Addit. Manuf., vol. 32, no. November 2019, 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.addma.2020.101102.
13. F. Ning, W. Cong, Y. Hu, and H. Wang, “Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber-
reinforced plastic composites using fused deposition modeling: Effects of process
parameters on tensile properties,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 451–462,
2017, doi: 10.1177/0021998316646169.
14. J. Zhu, J. Zhang, J. Wang, and B. Wang, “Compatibilizer Assistant SCF/ABS
Composites with Improved Mechanical Properties Prepared by Fused Deposition
Modeling,” Polym. - Plast. Technol. Eng., vol. 57, no. 15, pp. 1576–1584, 2018, doi:
10.1080/03602559.2017.1410843.
15. Z. Weng, J. Wang, T. Senthil, and L. Wu, “Mechanical and thermal properties of
ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling 3D printing,”
Mater. Des., vol. 102, pp. 276–283, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.04.045.
16. T. J. Quill et al., “Thermal and mechanical properties of 3D printed boron nitride –
ABS composites,” Appl. Compos. Mater., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1205–1217, 2018, doi:
10.1007/s10443-017-9661-1.
17. A. R. Torrado Perez, D. A. Roberson, and R. B. Wicker, “Fracture surface analysis of
3D-printed tensile specimens of novel ABS-based materials,” J. Fail. Anal. Prev., vol.
14, no. 3, pp. 343–353, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11668-014-9803-9.

35
36