PROCESS CALIBRATION FOR ELASTICALLY SCALED

3D PRINTED MODELS USING FUSED DEPOSITION

MODELING

Robert M. Taylor 1, Edgar Mares2, Rhugdhrivya Rane3

University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019

Mike Love
Independent Consultant, Fort Worth, TX, 76248

I. Introduction
The development of 3D printing technologies for rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing has provided the
means for rapid, low-cost development of wind tunnel models for aerodynamic and aeroelastic evaluation of aircraft
configurations. For rigid aerodynamic configuration assessment, wind tunnel models can be designed as thick or solid
structures and 3D printed with sufficiently high stiffness so deformation is not significant. However, for flexible
aeroelastic assessment, relative stiffness of the model is highly significant and must be scaled to establish correct
relationships between the model and the aircraft. For conventional aeroelastic wind tunnel models, constructed with
an internal frame and skin covering, scaling to match stiffness can be accomplished through material selection, sizing,
and orientation as well as through stiffening configuration. Despite the relatively high cost and time requirements of
these models, the design freedom to scale material and geometric stiffness is high because each component is
fabricated separately. In a 3D printed model, the scope of design freedom to scale stiffness through material and
geometric configuration depends on the particular 3D printing technology used and may conflict with the objective to
reduce model fabrication cost and time through part consolidation and tooling elimination.
Layering and inherent manufacturing characteristics of polymer materials in 3D printed structures introduce key
material limitations relevant to aeroelastic performance that differ in scope and magnitude depending on the specific
printing technology. These limitations include low stiffness and static and fatigue strength below that of the bulk
thermoplastic polymer due to material discontinuities, defects, and bond strength of beads or powders. Furthermore,
the layering and rastering aspects of 3D printing processes create significant anisotropy that is highly dependent on
the specific process parameters used to generate a print. In particular, mechanical properties in the vertical build, or
z-direction, can be as much as an order of magnitude lower for some 3D printing technologies. For an aeroleastic
wind tunnel model to take advantage of 3D printing to reduce cost and time while being accurately scaled for
equivalent stiffness and aeroelastic behavior, the model must be engineered for 3D printed material properties,
capabilities, and limitations.
The present work involves initial testing and modeling to develop and validate a methodology for elastic scaling
suitable for 3D printed aeroelastic wind tunnel models to match aeroelastic test behavior using engineered 3D printed
materials to tune and tailor model performance.

II. Background
The present work to aeroelastically tailor and scale 3D printed aircraft for wind tunnel applications builds on
methods and technology from aeroelastic tailoring and scaling and the application of these methods and technologies
in the context of additive manufacturing and materials.

A. Aeroelastic Tailoring
Shirk, et al,1 define aeroelastic tailoring as “the embodiment of directional stiffness into an aircraft structural design
to control aeroelastic deformation, static or dynamic, in such a fashion as to affect the aerodynamic and structural
performance of that aircraft in a beneficial way.” As discussed by Shirk, et al, aeroelastic tailoring theory has been
well developed and applied to numerous research and development activities. Aeroelastic tailoring has drawn on the

1
Professor in Practice, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
2
Graduate Student, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
3
Graduate Student, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

1
expanded design freedom provided by the directional stiffness properties of continuous fiber composite laminates
achieved through stacking sequence of orthotropic lamina. Without changing the weight of a laminated plate,
variations from symmetry and balance in the laminate stack cause coupling between in-plane and out-of-plane
deflections allowing the designer to design wing behavior for bend-twist coupling and bend-camber coupling. For
instance, the wing laminate may be designed in one scenario in which positive wing bending causes nose down twist
(washout). In this case, the center of pressure moves inboard as the outboard leading edge of the wing trends to a
reduced angle of attack. In another laminate design concept positive bending may lead to nose up twist (washin) in
which the center of pressure moves outboard in concert with the leading edge angle of attack increasing. In a third
laminate design scenario, positive wing bending may lead to an increase in wing camber in which the wing lift
effectiveness is increased. These concepts may be designed intermingled into the topology of the wing skin laminate
to achieve an integrated design for center of pressure control and desired aeroelastic constraints such as flutter and
control reversal.

B. Aeroelastic Scaling
An aeroelastic wind tunnel model requires similarity of both geometry and stiffness to the full scale aircraft.2
Geometric similarity requires scaling of geometric parameters defining the shape of the model. Stiffness similarity
requires the bending and torsional stiffness distribution to match EI to GJ ratios.
For static aeroelastic scaling, the wind tunnel test section determines the length scale factor. For the scaled model
flexural axis, flexural stiffness ratio (EI model/EIaircraft) is scaled by the product of the dynamic pressure scale factor
(qmodel/qaircraft) and the length scale factor (smodel/saircraft) squared. The torsional stiffness ratio (GJmodel/GJaircraft) is scaled
the same way. For the aeroelastic model, similarity of this bending and torsional stiffness distribution must be
developed at multiple sections along the flexural axis by adjusting the topology and dimensions of the wing structure.

C. Aeroelastic Tailoring and Scaling in the Context of Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing (AM), via various 3D printing technologies, enables a new range of design freedoms for
aeroelastic tailoring and scaling of wind tunnel models since parts are fabricated by depositing material in successive
layers. Because 3D printing technologies enable material and geometric complexity in unitized, tool-free
manufacture, they present novel means for tailoring and tuning stiffness while minimizing model discrete part count,
assembly operations, and cost.
1. Math Model
While the mathematics of aeroelastic tailoring and scaling do not change for AM models, the available methods
to tune the stiffness and tailor aeroelastic performance have the potential to substantially increase the complexity of
the model. These methods could include increased geometric complexity of stiffening arrangements, increased
complexity of material distribution, mesostructures, microstructural condition determined by process parameters.
Futhermore, process induced material conditions described earlier, including material discontinuities, defects, bond
strength, and anisotropy, all affect the stiffness parameters in the aeroelastic tailoring and scaling equations non-
uniformly throughout the model.
2. Design for Additive Manufacture of Aeroelastic Aircraft
A wide variety of polymer 3D printing technologies have been applied to fabricate aerodynamic wind tunnel
models3,4,5,6. Fewer examples appear in the literature for aeroelastic wind tunnel models 7,8 but the same polymer 3D
printing technologies are generally applicable. The polymer 3D printing technologies used in these models have been
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Stereolithography (SLA), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and Material Jetting
(MJ).
These 3D printing technologies provide both opportunities and constraints for fabrication of aeroelastic models
and aircraft. First, these technologies enable expanded design freedom for directional and variable stiffening through
complex stiffener configurations. This complexity can be through substructure arrangement (e.g. directional, isogrid,
or topology optimized substructure), cross section configuration (e.g. discretely or continuously variable cross section
shape or wall thickness), or skin thickness distribution (discretely or continuously variable). Much of this complexity
can be realized in FDM printed thin wall structures defined by surface models that, once sliced in build preparation
software, explicitly define extruded polymer track positions as shown for some examples9 in Figure 1. Further design
freedom comes through engineered materials such as short fiber reinforcement of deposited polymer beads or powders.

2
 Figure 1—Examples of stiffness tailoring by geometric complexity enabled by 3D printing 9
Next, these technologies impose constraints on fabrication that must be considered in aeroelastic model design.
Each of the polymer 3D printing technologies listed above converts polymer feedstock (powder, filament, or resin)
into 3D geometry using a layering process in which individual layers are fabricated through vector scans that fuse or
deposit roads of material. This process of sequential and directional fusion of material affects material capability (e.g.
anisotropy, voids, interbead/interparticle bond strength) and geometric capability (e.g. overhangs, bridging) and must
be accounted for in methods and tools for designing aeroelastic structures. This accounting includes design constraints
that incorporate strength and stiffness as functions of 3D print process parameters, such as build orientation and wall
thickness, as well as informing topology optimization with process constraints, such as bridging and overhang limits,
to ensure 3D printable internal aircraft structures are developed.
Finally, these 3D printing technologies provide opportunities to push innovation in aeroelastic design. As process
knowledge is incorporated into automated optimization tools, designers can leverage the process characteristics, such
as anisotropy, to enhance stiffness tailoring in aeroelastic models. Process limitations provide opportunities for
technology development, as discussed below for z-direction strength improvement in FDM processes.
3. Additive Materials for Aeroelastic Tailoring and Scaling
While each 3D printing technology brings its own material strengths and weaknesses, there are some common
characteristics shared by each. One common characteristic is the reduced strength of fabricated parts in the build, or
Z, direction. For some polymer 3D printing processes, z-direction strength can be an order of magnitude lower than
in-plane strengths.10 The layering process that creates interfaces and voids in the AM build ensures that bulk material
mechanical and physical properties are not achieved in 3D printed components.
Focusing on the FDM process, this reduced strength occurs transverse to deposited polymer tracks, which have
interface strengths that vary based on thermal gradients during the build process that vary the bond potential along the
length of the interface. Voids at track directional changes create stress risers that initiate bond failure at low static
stress level and very low fatigue stress levels.
This material inhomogeneity in FDM parts creates not only strength variation, but also stiffness variation. As
shown in Figure 2, deposited beads have rounded corners that leave voids at bead corners. The size of the voids
depends on 3D printing process parameters and determines the amount of contact between beads from layer to layer.
Because of these voids, material continuity is less than 100% and the developed modulus is reduced from the bulk
material modulus. Furthermore, effective material available for geometric stiffness, such as moment of inertia, is
reduced.

3
 Figure 2—Effect of bead-to-bead interface on local stiffener material continuity
Several material and process engineering approaches are available to improve this strength and stiffness variation
to bring FDM 3D printed polymer mechanical properties closer to bulk polymer properties. These approaches include
1. Particle infusion to strengthen and stiffen along the bead direction11
2. In-situ plasma heating process and CNT coated filament for enhanced interfacial bonding strength12
3. Microstructured monofilaments13
4. Component post-build heat treatment to increase polymer chain reptation14, diffusion, and randomization
based on chain dynamics15,16
Additionally, a key trade-off in polymer 3D printing processes lies in achieving desirable mechanical properties
at the expense of geometric accuracy. Process parameters can be adjusted to affect interface strengths and stress riser
severity in void geometries. But these adjustments typically affect material deposition or fusion so as to cause bulging,
warping, or inaccurate generation of geometry. For example, in FDM processes, increased overlap of tracks of
deposited materials, as shown in Figure 3 for a cross section with build direction out of the page, increases polymer
chain mixing and therefore inter-bead bond strength. However as the overlap increases deposited material must spread
outside the bounds of desired contours. In a thin wall 3D printed FDM structure such as small aircraft wing, stiffener
effectiveness strongly depends on the inter-bead bond size and quality achieved during printing.

Figure 3—Effect of bead overlap on local stiffener material continuity (build direction out of page)
Finally, structural performance of the thin wall structures shown in Figure 1 depends on the effectiveness of thin
stiffeners, such as those shown in Figure 3, which have angles relative to 3D print build direction that vary
considerably. The effect of this change in build orientation on local stiffener material continuity is shown in Figure
4. A stiffener printed vertically aligns each bead directly on top of the bead in the layer below it and the spacing
between surfaces locates each bead immediately adjacent to the next. In addition to the sensitivity to bead-to-bead
contact between layers in a vertically printed stiffener, material continuity is further reduced at the 45º build
orientation. At this print angle, only about half of each bead is contact with the bead in the layer below and identical
surface spacing leads to bead centerlines 1.414 times farther apart. This spacing leaves a gap between beads.
Consequently, the deposited material has significant modulus reduction in these features.

Figure 4—Effect build orientation on local stiffener material continuity

4
 The present work involves initial testing and modeling to develop and validate a methodology for accounting for
the build orientation effect shown in Figure 4 on local stiffener material continuity and part stiffness. Such stiffness
calibration is needed in order to facilitate elastic scaling suitable for 3D printed aeroelastic wind tunnel models to
match aeroelastic test behavior using engineered 3D printed materials to tune and tailor model performance.

III. Process Calibration Study

To illustrate process calibration for stiffness suitable for elastic tailoring and scaling in 3D printed models, the
following sections discuss a scaled stiffened plate study model, 3D printing fabrication controlled for print orientation
effects, two test configurations for measuring displacement effects, and finite element model to capture these process
effects.

A. Scaled Plate Model

To investigate the effects of 3D print orientation on stiffness and flexural and twist behavior of 3D printed stiffened
plates, an elastically scaled model of a full scale structure has been defined. The plate is 10 inches long by 3.33 inches
wide, by 0.5 inches deep. These dimensions represent a 1/10 th scaling of a full scale simplified composite wing 100
x 33.3 x 5 inches, which has aspect ratio = 3.0 and t/c = 0.15. A simple elastic tailoring is investigated by stiffening
the plate with two arrangements, 0º stiffeners and 45º stiffeners, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5—0º and 45º stiffening configurations in scaled plate model

Printed bead thickness is 0.02 inches for settings used on the Stratasys Fortus 450MC using ABS-M30 material.
Beads are printed 0.02 inches apart to and defined using surface models as shown Figure 6 for the 0º stiffened plate.
Skin thickness of the scaled plate is 2 print beads. Stiffener thickness effect is studied at two different thicknesses, 2
beads and 4 beads. Assuming full bonding between beads, the moment of inertia for these cross-sections is calculated
𝑏ℎ3
using 𝐼 = ∑ ( + 𝑏ℎ𝑑 2 ) to be 0.025 in4 for the 2 bead 0º stiffened plate and 0.026 in4 for the 4 bead 0º stiffened
12
plate. As discussed previously, the degree of bead-to-bead bonding would to some degree reduce the effective moment
of inertia from these calculated values but this effect was not studied in this work. It presents a source of error in the
results obtained below.

Figure 6— 2- and 4-bead 0º stiffened scaled plate model cross section

Two beam bending configurations are studied in order to test and calibrate for process-induced stiffness effects.
For a 3 point bend configuration as shown in Figure 7, Euler-Bernoulli beam theory predicts transverse displacement
𝑃𝐿3 𝑃𝐿3
to be 𝑤 = so the equivalent modulus for a measured displacement is calculated as 𝐸 = . For a cantilever
48𝐸𝐼 48𝑤𝐼
𝑃𝐿3
beam configuration, as shown in Figure 8, beam theory predicts transverse displacement to be 𝑤 = so the
3𝐸𝐼
𝑃𝐿3
equivalent modulus from a measured displacement is 𝐸 = .
3𝑤𝐼

5
 Figure 7—3 point bend free body diagram and deflection

Figure 8—Cantilever beam free body diagram and deflection

B. 3D Print Orientation Effect

To establish the effect of build orientation on the scaled stiffened plate flexural modulus, the plate is fabricated in
two orientations, vertical and 45º, as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9—Build orientations for scaled stiffened plate model

As discussed previously, bead overlap and spacing at the inclined print angle affects material continuity and thus
the developed stiffness in the fabricated geometry. These effects are illustrated in the sliced stiffener geometry as the
part is prepared for printing. The vertical build, shown in Figure 10, develops adjacent beads while the 45º build,
shown in Figure 11, develops a gap between beads.

Figure 10—Sliced stiffener geometry for vertical build

6
 Figure 11—Sliced stiffener geometry for 45º build
Assuming the total amount of material in the cross section is the same for both print orientations as suggested by
mass conservation (the flattened shape of deposited beads may affect this assumption), both print orientations have
the same moment of inertia. However the effective elastic and shear moduli are reduced.

C. Scaled Plate Fabrication

The scaled plate models were 3D printed on a Stratasys Fortus 450MC, in both the 90º and 45º build orientations
as shown in Figure 12. Several stabilizing walls were required to support the 45º oriented plates during the print.

Figure 12—3D printed 0º stiffened plate models in 90º and 45º print orientations
A total of 8 plates were printed: 0º stiffened with 2 beads per stiffener, shown in Figure 13; 0º stiffened with 4 beads
per stiffener, shown in Figure 14; 45º stiffened with 2 beads per stiffener, shown in Figure 15; 45º stiffened with 4
beads per stiffener, shown in Figure 16. Stiffener material continuity is best in 90º prints for the 0º stiffened plates
and best in 45º prints for the 45º stiffened plates.

Figure 13—2 bead stiffeners in 0º stiffened plate models in 90º (top) and 45º (bottom) print orientations

7
 Figure 14—4 bead stiffeners in 0º stiffened plate models in 90º (top) and 45º (bottom) print orientations

Figure 15—2 bead stiffeners in 45º stiffened plate models in 90º (top) and 45º (bottom) print orientations

Figure 16—4 bead stiffeners in 45º stiffened plate models in 90º (top) and 45º (bottom) print orientations

D. Scaled Plate Testing

Testing for process-induced stiffness effects included 3 point bend tests and cantilever beam tests.
1. 3 Point Bend Testing
3 point bend testing of the 0º stiffened plates was executed for the 0º stiffened plate configuration loaded as shown
previously in Figure 7. The test fixture and setup used for this testing is shown in Figure 17. Supports in the fixture
were spaced 7.00 inches apart. Tests were executed on a Shimadzu Autograph model AGS-X universal testing
machine. Force was increased to a maximum of 80.00 N (18 lbf), which was sufficient for stiffness measurement
without inducing local failures within the plate.

8
 Figure 17—3 point bend test setup
2. Cantilever Beam Testing
Cantilever beam testing of 0º and 45º stiffened plates was executed for the configuration shown previously in
Figure 8. The test fixture and setup used for this testing is shown in Figure 17. Plates were clamped to a table and a
1.00 kg (2.20 lbf) weight was hung from the end of the beam. Displacement was measured using a dial indicator
mounted on a side table. Measurements were taken at the loaded end at three points: left, middle, and right.

Figure 18—Cantilever beam test setup

E. Finite Element Modeling

Finite element models of the stiffened plates were created for both the 3 point bend and cantilever test
configurations. All models used first order CQUAD4 elements with PSHELL property cards and were solved using
linear static analysis in Altair OptiStruct. Shell thicknesses were based on printed bead thickness of 0.02” and the
number of beads. Flange regions used z-offsets to correctly position the additional thickness.
1. 3 Point Bend Model
The 3 point bend finite element model is shown in Figure 19. The modulus for this model was calculated using
the method discussed previously in Section III.A with displacement results from 3 point bend tests. Test reaction
supports were defined by SPC constraints fixing translation (DOF 123) and spaced 7.00” apart. The 18.0 lbf load was
split into 4.50 lbf forces applied at mid-span at the top of each of the 4 stiffeners. Displacement results were extracted
from the mid-span midpoint node on bottom surface.

9
 Figure 19—0º stiffener 3 point bend finite element model
2. Cantilever Beam Model
The cantilever beam finite element models are shown in Figure 20 for the 0º stiffener configuration and Figure 21
for the 45º stiffener configuration. The modulus for these models was calculated using the method discussed
previously in Section III.A with displacement results from cantilever beam tests. Test reaction supports were defined
by SPC constraints fixing translations and rotations (DOF 123456) at all surface nodes within the 1.50” deep clamped
region. The 2.20 lbf tip load was applied at the midpoint of the cross section and distributed using an RBE3 rigid
element to all nodes at the end of the beam. Displacement results extracted from tip midpoint node on top surface.

Figure 20—0º stiffener cantilever beam finite element model

Figure 21—45º stiffener cantilever beam finite element model

IV. Results
Tests were executed to determine stiffness response in the 3D printed plates as measured by displacement. Finite
element models of the plates were calibrated with modulus values calculated from displacement measurements as
discussed previously in Section III.A. Results are presented below for tests and finite element models along with
comparison between test and finite element models.

10
 A. Testing
Test results are presented below for 3 point bend and cantilever beam tests.
1. 3 Point Bend Testing
3 point bend testing generated force vs. stroke data for the 0º stiffened plate model as shown in Figure 22.
Displacement exhibited initial nonlinearity during a settling in range and then transitioned into linear displacement
above 10 lbf. The initial nonlinearity was a significant factor in the increased displacement at the final load. While
some of this initial nonlinearity could be due to the specimens settling into the fixture, the degree of initial nonlinearity
increased with reduced stiffener thickness and reduced material continuity (45º print vs 90º print) and is thus assumed
to be connected to printing-induced stiffness effects.

Figure 22—Force vs stroke response for 0º stiffened scaled plate models

Displacement results from 3 point bend test for the 0º stiffened plate are shown in Table 6. The plates fabricated
at 45º angle yielded significant flexural stiffness reduction from the 90º fabricated plates. Secant modulus values were
calculated from displacement measurements as discussed previously in Section III.A.
Table 1—3 point bend test results for 0º stiffened plate
Configuration Disp (in.) Calculated E (psi) E Reduction (psi)
2 bead, 90º print 0.027 191506.5
2 bead, 45º print 0.034 151847.2 0.207
4 bead, 90º print 0.025 196814.8
4 bead, 45º print 0.028 174706.0 0.112

2. Cantilever Beam Testing

Cantilever beam testing generated tip displacements for the 0º and 45º stiffened plate models with a 2.20 lbf load.
Cantilever test results for 0º stiffened plates are shown in Table 2. Displacement was measured in the unloaded and
loaded states from dial indicator readings at the tip of the plate at 3 points: right, middle, and left. From these
measurements, net displacement, twist angle, and average displacement were calculated. Modulus values were
calculated from average displacement values as discussed previously in Section III.A. From these calculated moduli,
the stiffness reduction was determined to be 11% for the beams printed at 45º.

11
 Table 2— Cantilever test results for 0º stiffened plate
Dial Indicator Reading (in.)
Net Disp Angle Avg Disp Calculated E %E
Config No Load 2.20 lbf (in.) (deg) (in.) (psi) Reduction
2 bead, 90º print
right 0.111 0.021 0.090
middle 0.128 0.040 0.088
left 0.141 0.050 0.091 0.019 0.090 187420.9
2 bead, 45º print
right 0.140 0.040 0.100
middle 0.148 0.048 0.100
left 0.151 0.048 0.103 0.057 0.101 166390.2 11.2
4 bead, 90º print
right 0.087 0.006 0.081
middle 0.090 0.007 0.083
left 0.129 0.043 0.086 0.095 0.083 188859.5
4 bead, 45º print
right 0.118 0.025 0.093
middle 0.134 0.043 0.091
left 0.146 0.049 0.097 0.076 0.094 168024.5 11.0

Cantilever test results for 45º stiffened plates are shown in shown in Table 3. As for the previous tests,
displacement was measured in the unloaded and loaded states from dial indicator readings at the tip of the plate at 3
points: right, middle, and left. From these measurements, net displacement, twist angle, and average displacement
were calculated. Modulus values were not calculated since the plate configuration necessitates more sophisticated
stiffness matrix formulation, which is planned in future work.
Table 3— Cantilever test results for 45º stiffened plate
Dial Indicator Reading (in.)
Net Disp Angle Avg Disp
Config No Load 2.20 lbf (in.) (deg) (in.)
2 bead, 90º print
right 0.224 0.054 0.170
middle 0.236 0.076 0.160
left 0.251 0.097 0.154 -0.306 0.161
2 bead, 45º print
right 0.213 0.061 0.152
middle 0.230 0.071 0.159
left 0.237 0.084 0.153 0.019 0.155
4 bead, 90º print
right 0.240 0.105 0.135
middle 0.249 0.111 0.138
left 0.261 0.125 0.136 0.019 0.136
4 bead, 45º print
right 0.213 0.084 0.129
middle 0.230 0.101 0.129
left 0.243 0.10 0.123 -0.115 0.127

B. Finite Element Results

Finite element model displacement results were generated for the 0º and 45º stiffened plates. For the 0º stiffened
plates, a material modulus value of 188 ksi was used in these models. This value was developed from the average
values calculated, as discussed previously in Section III.A, from cantilever beam testing of the 0º stiffened plate. For
the 45º stiffened plates, the modulus was reduced by 11% to 167 ksi to account for the reduced stiffness from the
increased gap introduced during pre-build part slicing process.

12
 1. 3 Point Bend Finite Element Results
Figure 23 shows displacement contours for the 0º stiffener 3 point bend finite element model. As previously
discussed, loads were applied as 4 discrete point loads of equal values at the top of the 4 stiffeners at mid-span. The
equal force magnitudes in this loading generated non-uniform displacement values across the width of the plate
whereas a work equivalent force distribution would have generated more uniform displacement values. Displacement
results were extracted from the mid-span midpoint node on bottom surface for comparison with test data.

Figure 23—0º stiffened 3 point bend finite element model displacement results
Table 4 gives a comparison of the finite element model predictions relative to the measured test displacements for
the 3 point bend finite element results for the 0º stiffened plates. Using the initial modulus value, the 90º printed plates
compared reasonably but not as well as desired for an acceptable methodology. The 45º plates showed significantly
higher differences. When corrected for the reduced stiffness, the 45º plate differences are reduced but still quite high.
Table 4—3 point bend finite element results for 0º stiffened plate
Test Disp FE Disp FE Disp (in.),
Configuration (in.) (in.) % Diff Reduced E % Diff
2 bead, 90º print 0.027 0.027 0.8
2 bead, 45º print 0.034 0.027 21.4 0.030 11.8
4 bead, 90º print 0.025 0.023 7.6
4 bead, 45º print 0.028 0.023 18.0 0.026 7.3

2. Cantilever Beam Finite Element Results

Figure 24 shows displacement contours for the 0º stiffened cantilever beam finite element model. The RBE3
distribution of the single point load to end nodes generated a symmetric loading across the width and thus a uniform
displacement field in this direction.

Figure 24—0º stiffened cantilever beam finite element model displacement results
Table 5 gives a comparison of the finite element model predictions relative to the measured test displacements for the
Cantilever beam finite element results for 0º stiffened plates. Using the initial modulus value, the 90º printed plates
compared well but the 45º plates showed significantly higher differences. When corrected for the reduced stiffness,
the 45º plate differences compare well. Given the use of this test data for calculating modulus values these close
correlations were expected.

13
 Table 5— Cantilever beam finite element results for 0º stiffened plate
Test Disp FE Disp FE Disp (in.),
Configuration (in.) (in.) % Diff Reduced E % Diff
2 bead, 90º print 0.090 0.089 1.1
2 bead, 45º print 0.101 0.089 11.9 0.100 1.0
4 bead, 90º print 0.083 0.081 2.4
4 bead, 45º print 0.094 0.081 13.8 0.091 3.2

Figure 25Figure 24 shows displacement contours for the 45º stiffener cantilever beam finite element model. The
RBE3 distribution of the single point load to end nodes generated a symmetric loading across the width but the angled
stiffener configuration produces non-symmetric stiffness that couples bending and twisting deformations.
Consequently, the displacement field is non-uniform across the width of the plate as it twists.

Figure 25—45º stiffened cantilever beam finite element model displacement results
Table 6 gives a comparison of the finite element model predictions relative to the measured test displacements for
the Cantilever beam finite element results for 45º stiffened plates. Using the initial modulus value, all of the plates
compared poorly. When corrected for the reduced stiffness, the 45º plate differences were reduced but still compared
poorly.
Table 6— Cantilever beam finite element results for 45º stiffened plate models
Test Disp FE Disp % FE Disp (in.),
Configuration (in.) (in.) Diff Reduced E % Diff
2 bead, 90º print 0.161 0.110 31.7% 0.123 23.6%
2 bead, 45º print 0.155 0.110 29.0%
4 bead, 90º print 0.136 0.105 22.8% 0.118 13.2%
4 bead, 45º print 0.127 0.105 17.3%

Even though induced twisting of the 45º stiffened plate is evident in Figure 25, all finite element calculated twist
angles were less than three hundredths of a degree. This trivial amount of twist corresponds to the insignificant
magnitudes of twist measured from the cantilever beam testing of the 45º plates. The low twist values are due to the
very small contribution of the stiffeners to the moment of inertia such that angled orientation does not induce
meaningful twist deformation in the beam.

V. Conclusion
As 3D printing enables rapid, low cost development of aeroelastic wind tunnel models, the effects of 3D printing
process parameters and material characteristics on elastic scaling are a primary consideration. A methodology is
needed to enable stiffness tuning and tailoring that is essential for aeroelastic model calibration.
The work presented is a first attempt to characterize the effect of one key process parameter, bead continuity due
to print orientation, on material integrity and the resulting effective modulus along with its geometric sensitivity. As
shown by variation in test results and poor correlation in finite element models, further work is required (and in
progress) to develop a usable methodology. In particular, the methodology must start at a more fundamental level
through dog bone coupon testing to directly determine the stiffness effect of bead continuity due to print orientation.

14
This approach would enable calibrated stiffness to be applied locally to affected geometry rather than applied across
an entire component as was done in this work. In addition to a local stiffener model, a local stiffness model must also
be implemented for directional stiffness due to bead angles in the skin layers, which behave as orthotropic materials
similar to fiber reinforced composites.17
Additional work is in progress to improve on the results presented here. First, an equivalent plate stiffness
formulation18,19 is in work that can account for 3D printed process effects on plates with tailored stiffnesses. Second,
the early nonlinearity in plate bend testing is being investigated to determine the material and structural sources in
order to better model equivalent stiffness. Next, the plate study model is being reconfigured to induce greater bend-
twist coupling with angled stiffeners so this effect can be quantified in models that are validated and calibrated.
Finally, additional process parameters, such as bead overlap shown in Figure 3, that affect material continuity and
structural stiffness will be studied in future work.

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Altair Engineering, Inc, for software support in this work.

References

1
Shirk, M.H., Hertz, T.J., Weisshaar, T.A.., “Aeroelastic Tailoring—Theory, Practice, and Promise,” Journal of
Aircraft., Vol 23, No 1, 6-18, 1986.
2
Bisplinghoff, R., Ashley, H. and Halfman, R., Aeroelasticity, Addison-Wesley,Reading, Massachusetts, 1955.
3
Heyes, A.L., and Smith, D.A.R., “Rapid Technique for Wind-Tunnel Model Manufacture,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol
42, No 2, pp 413-415, 2004.
4
Chuk, R.N., and Thomson, V.J., “A comparison of rapid prototyping techniques used for wind tunnel model
fabrication,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol 4, No 4, pp. 185–196, 1998.
5
Zhu, W, Zhao, X, Zhang, W, Ren, K, Zhang, Z, Li, D, “Design and Evaluation of Fully Configured Models Built
by Additive Manufacturing,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 52, No. 7, 2014.
6
Tyler, C., Braisted, W., and Higgins, J., “Evaluation of Rapid Prototyping Technologies for Use in Wind Tunnel
Model Fabrication,” Proceedings of the 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2005.
7
Wang, C., Yin, G, Zhang, Z, Wang, S, Zhao, T, Sun, Y., Yang, D., “Design and fabrication of an aircraft static
aeroelastic model based on rapid prototyping,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol 21, No 1, pp 34–42, 2015.
8
Zhu W., Li D., Zhang Z., Ren K., Zhao X., Yang D., Zhang W., Sun Y., Tang Y., "Design and fabrication of
stereolithography‐ based aeroelastic wing models", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 17, No 4, pp.298-307, 2011.
9
Lira, Sabine, Conklin, Lea, Taylor, “Design Optimization, Fabrication, and Testing of 3D Printed Aircraft Structure
Using Fused Deposition Modeling” SFF Symposium 2018
10
Ziemian, C., Sharma, M., and Ziemian, S., "Anisotropic mechanical properties of ABS parts fabricated by fused
deposition modelling." Mechanical engineering. InTech, 2012.
11
Ning, F., Cong, W., Qiu J., Wei J., and Wang S., "Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic
composites using fused deposition modeling." Composites Part B: Engineering 80 (2015): 369-378.
12
Sweeney, C.B., Lackey, B.A., Pospisil, M.J., Achee, T.C., Hicks, V.K., Moran, A.G., Teipel, B.R., Saed, M.A. and
Green, M.J., “Welding of 3D-printed Carbon Nanotube–polymer Composites by Locally Induced Microwave
Heating.” Science Advances, Vol 3, No 6, 2017.
13
P.M. Toal Jr, L.J. Holmes, R.X. Rodriguez, E.D. Wetzel, “Microstructured monofilament via thermal drawing of
additively manufactured preforms,” Additive Manufacturing, Vol 16, pp 12–23, 2017.
14
P. G. de Gennes, “Reptation of a Polymer Chain in the Presence of Fixed Obstacles,” The Journal of Chemical
Physics, Vol 55, No 2, pp 572-579, 1971.
15
Kim, Y., and Wool R., “A Theory of Healing at a Polymer-Polymer Interface,” Macromolecules, Vol 16, pp 1115-
1120, 1983.
16
Hart, K., and Wetzel E.. "Fracture behavior of additively manufactured acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
materials." Engineering Fr,cture Mechanics 177 (2017): 1-13.
17
Casavola, C., Cazzato, A., Moramarco, V., and Pappalettere, C., “Orthotropic mechanical properties of fused
deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate theory,” Materials & Design, Vol 90, 2016, pp. 453-458.
18
Chen, H, and Tsai, S. W., “Analysis and Optimum Design of Composite Grid Structures,” Journal of Composite
Materials, 1996 30: 503.
19
Gangadara, G, Design and Stiffness Optimization of Quadri-Directional Composite Grid Lattice Structures, Masters
Thesis, University of Texas at Arlington, 2016.

15