23 March 2018 Military comparison of 3D printed vs commercial components
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
The Army continues the development of 3D printing technology to enhance the capability to produce smaller and lighter precision weaponry. Researchers and support organizations that are affiliated with the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) are developing nano-based structures and components for advanced weaponry, aviation, and autonomous air/ground systems applications. The first key area consists of determining in-plane and out-of-plane shear properties of test articles made by 3D printing (Fused Deposition Modeling - FDM) and comparing to the conventional extrusion/forming sheet process. Test specimens are made from three polymer materials: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), high impact poly-styrene (HIPS), and poly-lactic acid (PLA). Laboratory testing is performed according to the ASTM D3846–02 method for determining the in-plane shear strength, while the ASTM D5379 method is used for determining the out-of-plane shear properties. A description on how the 3D printing process advances the shear properties and has the potential of improving the in-plane and cross-sectional shear properties over the conventional manufacturing process is presented. The second key area demonstrates a set of materials, processes, and techniques that support the enabling of additive manufacture (AM) of RF components. Research activities are focused on developing open-source hardware/software multi-material direct digital printing, and producing 3D printed antenna, passive components, and connectors for C-band and Ku-band systems. Material studies have demonstrated a suitable material set for RF components and identified key material performance limits. Results show how more enhancement could be achieved by optimizing the variables that affect 3D printing.
© (2018) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Janice Booth, Janice Booth, Eugene Edwards, Eugene Edwards, Michael Whitley, Michael Whitley, Michael Kranz, Michael Kranz, Mohamed Seif, Mohamed Seif, Paul Ruffin, Paul Ruffin, } "Military comparison of 3D printed vs commercial components", Proc. SPIE 10597, Nano-, Bio-, Info-Tech Sensors, and 3D Systems II, 105970J (23 March 2018); doi: 10.1117/12.2300773; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2300773
PROCEEDINGS
15 PAGES


SHARE
Back to Top