Comparative accuracy analysis of continuous fiber composite printers: Coextrusion vs. dual-nozzle technology

Comparative accuracy analysis of continuous fiber composite printers: Coextrusion vs. dual-nozzle technology

OCHANA Imi, DUCOBU François, SPITAELS Laurent, HOMRANI Mohamed Khalil, DEMARBAIX Anthonin

download PDF

Abstract. Material Extrusion (MEX) technology for continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites (CFRTCs) is based on the extrusion of a continuous fiber to create three-dimensional composite objects layer by layer. This technology explores three distinct methods: pre-impregnated filament, dual-nozzle, and coextrusion. The goal of this paper is to compare two printers, one using the dual nozzle technology and another relying on coextrusion. The first printer, Mark Two of Markforged, is based on dual-nozzle technology. The second printer, the Anisoprint Composer A4, stands out for its coextrusion method. Three adaptive Geometrical Benchmark Test Artifacts (GBTA), proposed by Spitaels et al. were fabricated with each printer to determine their dimensional performances. Measurements are taken using a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) Wenzel LH 54. The overall deviation results of the two printers are around the IT14 standard. Deviations for measurements between 1 and 10 mm are greater compared to dimensions exceeding 10 mm, averaging around IT 12. Along the Y-axis, Markforged shows smaller deviations, attributed to its smaller print bed dimension compared to Anisoprint. Additionally, Z-axis deviations are lower than those along other axes, suggesting both printers have better precision in vertical build plate movement compared to print head movement. Notably, significant deviations are observed at the center of the GBTA in comparison to the other three axes (X, Y, and Z) for both printers.

Continuous Fiber Reinforced, Dimensional Accuracy, 3D Printing

Published online 4/24/2024, 10 pages
Copyright © 2024 by the author(s)
Published under license by Materials Research Forum LLC., Millersville PA, USA

Citation: OCHANA Imi, DUCOBU François, SPITAELS Laurent, HOMRANI Mohamed Khalil, DEMARBAIX Anthonin, Comparative accuracy analysis of continuous fiber composite printers: Coextrusion vs. dual-nozzle technology, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 41, pp 127-136, 2024


The article was published as article 14 of the book Material Forming

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

[1] ASTM D638, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics 1”.
[2] U. M. Dilberoglu, B. Gharehpapagh, U. Yaman, and M. Dolen, “The Role of Additive Manufacturing in the Era of Industry 4.0,” Procedia Manuf, vol. 11, pp. 545–554, 2017.
[3] F. N. Chaudhry, S. I. Butt, A. Mubashar, A. Bin Naveed, S. H. Imran, and Z. Faping, “Effect of carbon fibre on reinforcement of thermoplastics using FDM and RSM,” Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 352–374, Mar. 2022.
[4] Read on the 28 th October 2023.
[5] A. Demarbaix, I. Ochana, J. Levrie, I. Coutinho, S. S. Cunha, and M. Moonens, “Additively Manufactured Multifunctional Composite Parts with the Help of Coextrusion Continuous Carbon Fiber: Study of Feasibility to Print Self-Sensing without Doped Raw Material,” Journal of Composites Science, vol. 7, no. 9, Sep. 2023.
[6] Maria Inês Santos Silva, “Non-Destructive Testing for Polymer Matrix Composites produced by Additive Manufacturing,” Jul. 2020.
[7] G. T. Mark, R. B. Woodruff, A. L. Parangi, D. S. Benhaim, and B. Tsu Sklaroff, “Multiaxis fiber reinforcement for 3D printing,” 2016.
[8] C. Pandelidi, S. Bateman, S. Piegert, R. Hoehner, I. Kelbassa, and M. Brandt, “The technology of continuous fibre-reinforced polymers: a review on extrusion additive manufacturing methods,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2021.
[9] A. V. Azarov et al., “Development of a two-matrix composite material fabricated by 3D printing,” Polymer Science – Series D, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 87–90, Jan. 2017.
[10] A. Adumitroaie, F. Antonov, A. Khaziev, A. Azarov, M. Golubev, and V. V. Vasiliev, “Novel continuous fiber bi-matrix composite 3-D printing technology,” Materials, vol. 12, no. 18, Sep. 2019.
[11] S. Moylan, J. Slotwinski, A. Cooke, K. Jurrens, and M. A. Donmez, “An additive manufacturing test artifact,” J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol, vol. 119, pp. 429–459, 2014.
[12] L. Spitaels, E. Rivière-Lorphèvre, A. Demarbaix, V. Thielens, and F. Ducobu, “Dimensional and geometrical performance assessment of two FDM printers using a benchmark artifact,” 2021.
[13] L. Spitaels, E. Rivière-Lorphèvre, A. Demarbaix, and F. Ducobu, “Adaptive benchmarking design for additive manufacturing processes,” Meas Sci Technol, vol. 33, no. 6, Jun. 2022.
[14] L. Rebaioli and I. Fassi, “A review on benchmark artifacts for evaluating the geometrical performance of additive manufacturing processes,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 93, no. 5–8, pp. 2571–2598, Nov. 2017.
[15] International Organization for Standardization 1988 ISO 286–1.
[16] M. A. de Pastre, S. C. Toguem Tagne, and N. Anwer, “Test artefacts for additive manufacturing: A design methodology review,” CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, vol. 31. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 14–24, Nov. 01, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.09.008