Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Experimental investigation of stereolithography and digital light processing additive manufactured pallets Cover

Experimental investigation of stereolithography and digital light processing additive manufactured pallets

Open Access
|May 2024

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Depiction of printing (a) SLA: point-based approach; (b) DLP: area scanning

Fig. 2.

Surface morphology depiction of 1-mm printed parts at 1-mm tolerance resolution using (a) CAD geometry (b) DLP (c) SLA

Table 1.

Process parameters corresponding to SLA 3D printing of pallet coupons

Layer Thickness (μm)Material
25Gray V4
50Model V3
100Clear V4
Table 2.

Material properties of the industry grade pallet 3D printing materials—SLA

MaterialsGrey V4Model V2Clear V2
Tensile strength (MPa)654265
Percentage of elongation6.24.86.2
Izod notched impact (J/m)252425
Heat deflection temperature (°C)73.17573.1
Table 3.

Orthogonal L9 array experimental runs for SLA 3D printing of pallet coupons

Experimental runsLayer thicknessMaterial
125Gray V4
225Clear v4
325Model V2
450Gray V4
550Clear
650Model V2
7100Gray V4
8100Clear
9100Model V2
Table 4.

Process parameters corresponding to DLP 3D printing of pallet coupons

Layer thickness (μm)Material
30FlexBlack-20
40ToughBlack-20
50ProBlack-10
Table 5.

Material properties of the industry grade pallet 3D printing materials—DLP

MaterialsFlex BLK-20Tough BLK-20Pro BLK-10
Tensile strength (MPa)354256
Percentage of elongation712712
Izod notched impact (J/m)1053522
Heat deflection temperature (°C)415570
Table 6.

Orthogonal L9 array experimental runs for DLP 3D printing of pallet coupons

Experimental runsLayer thicknessMaterial
130FlexBLK-20
230ToughBLK-20
330ProBLK-10
440ToughBLK-20
540ProBLK-10
640FlexBLK-20
750ProBLK-10
850FlexBLK-20
950ToughBLK-20
Fig. 3.

SLA and DLP 3D printing of tensile specimen dimensions: ASTM D638

Fig. 4.

GUI type IV tensile specimen (a) Preform: SLA, (b) 3D sprint: DLP software

Fig. 5.

3D printing of coupons (a) SLA Form 3 (b) DLP Figure 4 Standalone (CITD additive lab facility, MSME Tool room facility, Hyderabad, Govt. of India)

Table 7.

3D printing machine details: SLA – Form 3 and DLP

Machine NameForm labs 3Machine NameDLP Standalone System
Build145 ×Build124.8 ×
Volume145 × 185 ccVolume70.2 × 196 cc
Resolution25 μResolution1920×1080
Laser power250 mWWavelength405 nm
Laser Spot size85μPixel pitch65μ
Fig. 6.

Bottom-up approach 3D printing of pallet coupons in DLP method

Fig. 7.

3D printed ASTM D638 type IV pallet coupon using (a) SLA process: form 3 printer (b) DLP method: stand-alone printer

Fig. 8.

(a) Complete process for developing a commercial pallet tensile coupon replicator (CITD, Hyderabad facilities); (b) bottom half; (c) top half of injection mould die; (d) ABS pallet tensile specimen coupon prepared with gate and runner

Fig. 9.

Investigation of (a) uniaxial tensile test of SLA and DLP 3D printed ASTM D638 type IV samples; machine used: Instron 5966 model, (b) Shore A hardness durometer

Table 8.

Response variables for SLA 3D-printed pallet specimens

Experiment No.Layer thickness (μm)MaterialTensile strength (MPa)Elongation in (%)Hardness (Shore D)
125Grey V465.00650.00
225Clear V463.055.8748.50
325Model V261.00555.00
450Grey V461.555.8585.00
550Clear V461.405.73382.45
650Model V259.484.8953.35
7100Grey V461.435.6747.50
8100Clear V459.975.5980.75
9100Model V258.984.6752.25
Table 9.

Response variables for DLP 3D-printed pallet specimens

Experiment No.Layer thickness (μm)MaterialTensile strength (MPa)Elongation (%)Hardness (Shore D)
130FlexBLK-2033.2571.2568.75
230ToughBLK-2041.7528.5077.00
330ProBLK-1056.0511.475.53
440ToughBLK-2040.5027.6574.69
540ProBLK-1057.2311.6477.12
640FlexBLK-2032.2569.1166.69
750ProBLK-1057.341279.50
850FlexBLK-2031.5967.6965.31
950ToughBLK-2039.6627.0873.15
Table 10.

AHP pairwise computation matrix

AttributesTensile strength% ElongationHardness
Tensile strength1.005.004.00
% Elongation0.201.002.00
Hardness0.250.501.00
Table 11.

Weights disguised for each response variable

VariableWeight
Tensile strength0.687
% Elongation0.186
Hardness0.127
Table 12.

AHP-TOPSIS methodology for 3D printed pallets using the SLA process

S. No.Layer thickness (μm)MaterialWeighted matrixCloseness to ideal solutionCloseness coefficientRank
W_TSW_%EW_HSi+Si-Pi
125Grey V40.240.070.030.020.160.874
225Clear v40.240.070.030.030.160.865
325Model V20.230.060.040.030.170.866
450Grey V40.230.070.060.010.160.921
550Clear0.230.060.060.010.160.922
650Model V20.220.060.040.030.170.848
7100Grey V40.230.060.030.030.160.857
8100Clear0.220.060.050.020.160.893
9100Model V20.220.050.030.030.170.839
Table 13.

AHP-TOPSIS method for 3D printed pallets using DLP method

S. no.Layer thickness (μm)MaterialWeighted matrixCloseness to ideal solutionCloseness coefficientRank
W_TSW_%EW_HSi+Si-Pi
130FlexBLK-200.170.100.040.120.090.414
230ToughBLK-200.220.040.040.100.060.377
330ProBLK-100.290.020.040.090.130.603
440ToughBLK-200.210.040.040.110.050.338
540ProBLK-100.290.020.040.080.130.612
640FlexBLK-200.170.100.040.130.080.395
750ProBLK-100.300.020.050.080.130.611
850FlexBLK-200.160.100.040.130.080.386
950ToughBLK-200.200.040.040.110.050.309
Table 14.

Close to ideal solution for SLA and DLP 3D printed pallets: AHP-TOPSIS

ProcessLayer thickness (μm)Material
SLA50Grey V4
DLP50ProBLK-10
Fig. 10.

Design of a four-way pallet as per the ISO MH1-2016 standard in CAD software

Fig. 11.

Pallet 3D printing in accordance with the ISO MH1-2016 standard for optimized values using (a) SLA (b) DLP

Fig. 12.

Finite element model of the ASTM D638 model in ABAQUS 6.14

Fig. 13.

Simulations of 3D-printed test coupons for pallets corresponding to ABS (commercial replication: injection molding) (1); Pro-BLK-10 (SLA process) (2); and GrayV4 (DLP method) (3) for (a) maximum stress, (b) maximum deformation

Fig. 14.

Experimental uniaxial tensile test results for ABS (commercial replication: injection moulding), Pro-BLK-10 (SLA process), and GrayV4 (DLP method)

Fig. 15.

Prismatic bar with concentrated force

Table 15.

Simulated versus physical uniaxial tensile test for ABS, Pro-BLK, and Grey V4 for injection molding, SLA, and DLP 3D printed samples

MaterialParameterSimulationAnalyticalPhysical testingDifference between simulation & testing (in %)
ABSStress (MPa)37.7843.3340.196.37
Displacement(mm)1.801.881.6210
GrayV4Stress (MPa)55.7657.5261.5510.38
Displacement(mm)2.892.363.2512.45
ProBLK-10Stress (MPa)51.3154.3757.3411.75
Displacement(mm)2.882.693.1910.76
Fig. 16.

Simulated, experimental, and analytical uniaxial tensile test results for ABS, Pro-BLK, Grey V4 for injection molding, SLA and DLP 3D printed samples corresponding to (a) deflection (displacement) (b) stress

Fig. 17.

Coupon pallet 100 mm × 30 mm cross section being considered for (a) side view representing UDL load and (b) top deck of pallet corresponding to five beam elements

Fig. 18.

Global stiffness matrix of a simple supported beam with five elements corresponding to coupon pallet design

Fig. 19.

Beam representation for (a) 3D FEA model with fixed ends, (b) displacement module

Table 16.

Simulation and analytical values for displacement for a coupon sample

ParameterSimulationAnalyticalDifference between (percentage) simulation and analytical
Displacement (mm)7.297.86.5
Fig. 20.

Basis of boundary conditions for pallet analysis

Fig. 21.

ISO Pallet CAD model and finite element model with load distribution

Fig. 22.

Displacement and stress contours: ISO pallet corresponding to ABS material

Fig. 23.

Displacement and stress contours: ISO pallet corresponding to DLP material

Fig. 24.

Displacement and stress contour: ISO pallet corresponding to SLA material

Fig. 25.

Comparisons of (a) von mises stress and (b) displacement on the basis of pallet supports

Fig. 26.

Comparisons of deflection and stresses for DLP-manufactured pallet

Fig. 27.

Comparisons of deflection and von mises stresses for SLA manufactured pallet

Table 17.

Comparison of rack support vs. floor support, rack support vs. forklift support, and rack support vs. conveyor support for DLP

Comparison for deflectionComparison for von mises stress
Rack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyorRack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyor
83.4936.9841.1654.141.669.46
83.5037.0641.1254.121.559.54
83.5236.8741.0654.391.709.63
83.5436.9640.9954.401.579.75
83.5737.0640.9154.421.779.54
83.6737.0541.0454.441.619.68
83.7237.2140.9354.461.889.86
83.8036.8740.7854.492.2510.11
83.2237.0641.2654.552.1010.49
83.1836.4541.1254.632.7811.11
83.3337.5041.6756.162.7410.96
83.3336.1141.6757.905.2613.16
Table 18.

Comparison of rack support vs. floor support, rack support vs. forklift support, and rack support vs. conveyor support for SLA

Comparison for deflectionComparison for von misses stress
Rack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyorRack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyor
87.7953.2955.6357.183.7610.35
87.9553.0855.6457.294.0910.74
87.8953.2455.4957.304.2110.67
87.7752.9855.4957.454.6611.18
88.0353.1755.6357.844.8811.50
87.9053.2355.6558.105.5311.86
87.7953.0555.4058.265.9612.39
87.5753.1155.3758.476.5613.11
88.0353.5255.6359.068.0514.09
87.7452.8355.6659.659.6515.79
87.3253.5254.9362.5013.7520.00
88.5751.4354.2966.6722.2226.67
Fig. 28.

(a) CAD model (b) Finite element model for optimized pallet design

Fig. 29.

Displacement and stress contour: optimized pallet design (ABS material)

Fig. 30.

Displacement and stress contour: optimized pallet design (DLP material)

Fig. 31.

Displacement and stress contour: optimized pallet design (SLA material)

Fig. 32.

Optimized pallet analysis correlation to (a) von mises stress (b) deflection

Fig. 33.

Deflection and stresses for DLP-manufactured pallet

Fig. 34.

Deflection and von mises stresses for SLAmanufactured pallet

Table 19.

Comparison of rack support vs. floor support, rack support vs. forklift support, and rack support vs. conveyor support for DLP

Comparison for deflectionComparison for von mises stress
Rack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyorRack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyor
90.8961.8037.9748.5564.599.69
90.8261.8637.8848.5264.589.72
90.8861.8537.8748.5664.599.76
90.8161.8438.0148.5364.589.76
90.8961.8238.0048.5264.609.81
90.7861.9237.8848.5464.669.81
90.8961.9237.8548.5364.689.89
90.7661.9038.1048.4764.699.92
90.8861.7537.8948.4464.7410.06
90.6561.6837.8548.4664.7710.31
90.9162.2437.7648.3964.9110.78
90.1461.9738.0347.9665.1611.76
Table 20.

Comparison of rack support vs. floor support, rack support vs. forklift support, and rack support vs. conveyor support for SLA

Comparison for deflectionComparison for von-misses stress
Rack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyorRack vs. floorRack vs. forkliftRack vs. conveyor
90.3361.2137.8846.6564.649.22
90.3461.2437.8746.6464.639.23
90.3561.2837.8546.6564.659.23
90.3661.3337.8346.6364.649.23
90.2461.2537.9446.6464.609.29
90.2361.2437.8346.6264.599.25
90.2461.3037.7946.6464.609.33
90.2461.1737.9646.6164.599.27
90.2461.2537.9446.6264.609.39
90.2561.3737.9146.5664.589.47
90.2261.4137.5046.5864.619.59
90.2260.8738.0446.3664.5510.00
Fig. 35.

SEM images for additive-manufactured (a) DLP (b) SLA pallet

Fig. 36.

AFM plots of additive-manufactured (a) DLP (b) SLA pallets

Table 21.

Roughness values obtained from AFM for DLP and SLA pallets

S. No.Pallet-making processRoughness factor (nm)
1.DLP95.18
2.SLA207.35
Fig. 37.

XRD plots for 3D printed pallets availing (a) DLP (b) SLA

Table 22.

Residual stress values obtained from XRD

S. No.Pallet-making processResidual stress (MPa)
1DLP338.23
2SLA122.6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2024-0001 | Journal eISSN: 2083-134X (formerly 2083-124X) | Journal ISSN: 2083-1331
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 31
Submitted on: Sep 22, 2023
Accepted on: Mar 5, 2024
Published on: May 8, 2024
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2024 Anil Bairapudi, C. Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. Krishnaiah, Dola Sundeep, KV Eswaramoorthy, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.