HDPE + PU

Because my test objects are less warped while they are still attached to the polypropylene bed, I had the idea of filling them with something that sets hard to freeze them in that shape. That would also allow me to use a sparse fill pattern, which speeds up the FDM build time, but still get a strong object.

I needed something that was not too viscous so that it would flow in between the mesh of the fill pattern and would set hard.



Polyurethane was recommended to me because it has the consistency of milk before it sets and is strong enough to cast parts for Darwin. I bought some Smooth-Cast 300 which has a pot life of 3 minutes after it has been mixed, and cures in 15 minutes. I choose a fairly fast setting one because it gets hot while curing and I hoped it would soften the HDPE to relieve the stress. It only seems to get to about 50°C though so I don't think that it has much effect in that way.

This is the equipment I used :-



I know the internal volume of my objects pretty accurately so I measure out the required amount of plastic using separate labeled syringes for the two components. I mix it in a small pot before filling a third syringe to inject it. The syringes and pot are made out of polypropylene, which polyurethane does not stick to, so they can all be reused. I haven't found a way of unblocking the needles though.

I made a 50% filled object and drilled a hole the diameter of the needle in the middle that allowed the needle to go to the bottom. I also drilled a small riser hole at each end to let air out. Obviously, with cleverer software these holes could be made during the FDM phase.

The first attempt was a complete failure because the needle blocked when the object was only about 50% filled. Here is a cross section :-



For my second attempt I used a thicker needle, 1mm OD rather than 0.8mm :-



The object filled OK, but just as it became full the plastic in the needle set suddenly but I carried on pushing. The needle popped off the end of the syringe and PU sprayed all over the place. It was a good job I was wearing goggles and gloves but I should also have been wearing long sleeves, a mask and a hat! Fortunately PU does not stick to much, only untreated wood, skin and hair! Where it gets on your skin it burns slightly. Because it is transparent before it sets it is very hard to see where it has gone but when it sets it turns opaque white so it becomes obvious.



It actually sprayed around one quarter of the room. I even got some on my lips which I didn't notice until I tried eating.

What seems to happen is that if you subject the liquid plastic to pressure it accelerates the curing, which increases the temperature and pressure creating a positive feedback effect which makes it set suddenly in the needle. I only had two needles and they were now blocked so I did the remainder of my experiments using just the nozzle of the syringe into a bigger hole in the object.



The ideal solution is probably a very big needle that locks onto the syringe. It doesn't need to be sharp but the 45° slant at the end is handy because it stops the end being blocked if you press it against the bottom of the object.

Results
I left the objects on the bed overnight to make sure the PU was fully cured even though it sets in 15 minutes. The first object I made had a 50% fill and warped 0.36mm compared with 0.47mm without the PU injection.



Thinking that 50% fill leaves the PU fairly weak, I did another test at 25% fill. That gave 0.24mm warp, the lowest figure I have achieved yet for this shape.



I also tried a 100 x 10 x 20 mm test with 20% fill ratio. That gave about 50% less warping compared to the version without PU.



Conclusions
A useful technique for reducing warping and reducing the build time of FDM objects. The main disadvantage is that FDM is one of the cleanest and safest fabrication techniques whereas injecting PU is messy and somewhat dangerous unless you wear protective gear.

I was disappointed not to get rid of the warping completely. Instead of alternating the horizontal and vertical fill patterns, several layers of one followed by several layers of the other might make the PU lattice stronger. Raising the PU to 50°C for a few hours is supposed to harden it further, so I could try removing the bed and putting it in a very low oven for a while. I have a Peltier effect 12V beer fridge which can be reversed and used as an oven, so that would be ideal.

Using a harder plastic like epoxy might work better but it may be too viscous to inject. I believe heating it reduces viscosity.

Reducing HDPE warping feels much like banging ones head against the wall so I will try PCL and ABS next for some light relief.

Infill and warping

Now that I can create blocks with different infill densities I decided to experiment to see what effect it has on HDPE warping.

I have been using a standard test shape and a jig made of three nails to make comparative measurements.



I measure from the middle nail to the base with a pair of digital calipers and subtract the distance to a rule placed across the nails. The figure I get is an average of the amount each end warps upwards. Not very precise because the base is warped the other way as well.

The block is 40 x 10 x 20mm because you need about 40mm length before the warping becomes big enough to measure and 20mm height is about where things start to straighten out. Bigger shapes warp more but obviously take a lot longer to make. Each one of these takes about an hour including making the raft, extruding the block, separating it from the base and measuring it.

The block is held flat while it is stuck to the bed of the machine by the raft. It warps when I remove it. I have only recently noticed that it warps even more when left overnight, so some of my previous tests are not that accurate. For example I was quite pleased when I first produced this extruder sized block :-



But here it is again photographed some days later :-



Not easy to compare because of the angle but the uplift at each end probably increased from about 0.5mm to 1mm. It implies to me that HDPE creeps when under prolonged strain, not a very good engineering property. That is the main reason PTFE fails in the extruder.

I made the test blocks with different infill densities and left them overnight before measuring them :-



Here are the results: -

Density	Warp
20%	0.44 mm
25%	0.79 mm
33%	0.47 mm
50%	0.47 mm
100%	0.53 mm

The 33% value looks totally anomalous but that is because I tried a thicker base. Its base is 3mm of 100% fill including the raft, whereas all the other tests begin the sparse fill on the first layer above the raft.

I also tried 1mm filament 50% fill which gave 0.42mm warp showing that not stretching the filament does not give any improvement.

Conclusions: well sparser fill reduces the warping slightly. A thicker base, rather than resisting warping, actually contributes to it. I must point out that once you get less than 50% fill the object is considerably weaker than a solid block.

Finally here is a longer example, which illustrates how warping gets worse the larger the object is. This is 100 x 10 x 20mm with 20% fill. The first time I made it it lifted the raft away from the base. I got round that by increasing the raft temperature by 10°C to get a stronger weld. It was then quite hard work removing it and it caused some damage to the PP bed.



The 40mm section in the middle is only warped by 0.19mm but the ends are well over 1mm. That shows that you cannot compensate for the warping with a crowned bed because it is not a constant curvature. One could probably scan the shape of the base and lay down support material with the inverse curve. I expect it would then pull itself flat.

In my next experiment I will try filling the sparse blocks with polyurethane two part thermoset plastic.

Hot maths

As the power lost through the stainless steel barrel in my previous post seemed very low I decided to calculate it as a sanity check. I ignored the heat lost from the barrel by convection and radiation. They may be significant now but when I insulate it they shouldn't be.

The outside diameter of the tube is 6.35mm and the bore is 3.6mm, so that gives a cross sectional area of 2.15x10^-5m². Its length is 0.05m. The temperature difference over that length is 240°C-50°C = 190°C. The conductivity of stainless steel is 17 W/mK. So the heat flow is 17 x 190 x 2.15x10^-5 / 0.05 = 1.39W. That means it isn't very much compared to the total power required, so that matches my observation.

The amount of heat flowing into the heat sink is therefore 1.39W and it raises its temperature by 30°C, so the heat sink would have to be 22 °C/W. It was just a scrap one I had laying about so I don't have a spec but it is only 70 x 25 x 20mm so that seems in the right ball park.

Sanity checked!