polymers

Article
Basic Research for Additive Manufacturing of Rubber
Welf-Guntram Drossel 1,2 , Jörn Ihlemann 3 , Ralf Landgraf 3 , Erik Oelsch 3 and
Marek Schmidt 1, *
1 Professorship for Adaptronics and Lightweight Design in Production, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Chemnitz University of Technology, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany; adaptronik@mb.tu-chemnitz.de
2 Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany
3 Chair of Solid Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Chemnitz University of Technology,
09126 Chemnitz, Germany; joern.ihlemann@mb.tu-chemnitz.de (J.I.);
ralf.landgraf@mb.tu-chemnitz.de (R.L.); erik.oelsch@mb.tu-chemnitz.de (E.O.)
* Correspondence: marek.schmidt@mb.tu-chemnitz.de




Received: 17 August 2020; Accepted: 21 September 2020; Published: 1 October 2020


Abstract: The dissemination and use of additive processes are growing rapidly. Nevertheless, for the
material class of elastomers made of vulcanizable rubber, there is still no technical solution for
producing them using 3D printing. Therefore, this paper deals with the basic investigations to develop
an approach for rubber printing. For this purpose, a fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer is
modified with a screw extruder. Tests are carried out to identify the optimal printing parameters.
Afterwards, test prints are performed for the deposition of rubber strands on top of each other and
for the fabrication of simple two-dimensional geometries. The material behavior during printing,
the printing quality as well as occurrences of deviations in the geometries are evaluated. The results
show that the realization of 3D rubber printing is possible. However, there is still a need for research
to stabilize the layers during the printing process. Additionally, further studies are necessary to
determine the optimum parameters for traverse speed and material discharge, especially on contours.

Keywords: 3D rubber printing; additive manufacturing; screw extruder

1. Introduction
At present, there is a wide range of materials that can be processed using various additive methods
and the market continues to grow rapidly. Metallic powder materials can be melted into extremely
fine filigree structures using laser and beam-based processes [1,2]. Furthermore, there are additive
processes for additional material classes such as polymers and ceramics. Worth mentioning here is
selective laser sintering (SLS). In this additive process, a thin powder layer of the material is melted in
local areas, which forms a solid material layer after solidification. During this process, the melting
point of the material is not exceeded. Subsequently, another layer of powder is applied and melted in
the local areas. In this way, a component is created layer by layer. After completion, the excess powder
will be removed. Processable materials include metals and ceramics [3,4], but polymers can also be
manufactured [5].
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) or also called fused filament fabrication (FFF) is another
additive process for polymeric materials. In this process, materials such as meltable plastics or
thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) are built up layer-by-layer to form a component [6]. The 3D printing
process used for the longest time is stereolithography (SLA). The material used in this case is a
photopolymer, which is initially available as a liquid bath. A laser scans the desired component shape
and hardens the material. The hardened layer is then lowered and the next layer is produced [7].
Polyjet or multijet modeling (PJM/MJM) works on a different principle. Liquid acrylic polymers are
applied drop-by-drop onto a building platform via a print head with one or more nozzles. The material

Polymers 2020, 12, 2266; doi:10.3390/polym12102266 www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 2 of 13

is then cured layer-by-layer by irradiation with UV light [8]. Furthermore, there are less common
additive processes such as binding jetting [2], and layer laminated manufacturing [9], which also cover
the material classes of polymers, metals and ceramics.
Although there are numerous additive processes as well as usable materials, there is still no
technical solution for the additive manufacturing of elastomers made of vulcanizable rubber. Due to
their specific mechanical properties, elastomers have become indispensable in many everyday areas.
Compared to other polymers, properties such as high mechanical strength, very high elongation at
break and good impact resilience, to name but a few, distinguish the elastomers. As with other classes
of materials, the possibility of manufacturing components using additive processes in areas of the
elastomer industries, would bring decisive advantages, such as freedom in the designs. Up to now,
the production of elastomer molded parts is dominated by automated injection molding. Further options
are, among others, compression molding and thermoforming. Further details of the above procedures
can be found in [10–12]. However, what all the procedures have in common is the requirement for
previous production of expensive molding tools, which also severely limits the individuality and
subsequent customization. Elastomer production using 3D printing would enable manufacturing of the
first component samples at an early stage in the product development. Optimizations and individual
changes can be implemented faster and development loops would be shortened accordingly [13].
Research work in this area is worthwhile since there is a need for the additive manufacturing
of elastic materials. This is shown, not least, by the increasing use of additive processing of the
above-mentioned TPE using the FDM process. In addition to other differences from elastomers,
TPE has considerable disadvantages in terms of temperature stability. Due to melting at elevated
temperatures, the service temperature is well below the melting point. Elastomers made of rubber can
usually be exposed to these temperatures for a short time [14]. Furthermore, there is a technological
solution for UV-curing silicon elastomers from ACEO, a brand of Wacker Chemie AG. The specially
developed “drop on demand process” works in a manner similar to the PJM/MJM processes [15].
Digital light processing can also be used for silicon elastomers [16], although, there is always the risk
of embrittlement by ambient light during the use of UV-curing materials. A limited realization for the
additive manufacturing of vulcanizable rubbers is provided by [17]. The formulation of two rubber
components is designed in such a way that self-vulcanization occurs when they are combined. In 3D
printing, the material is merged in the extruder so that it has sufficient viscosity until it leaves the
nozzle. Subsequently, vulcanization begins on the building platform, which keeps the geometrically
desired shape stable. However, the possible properties of the final part remain very limited due to the
mainly specified chemical composition of the rubber compounds.
A major reason why there is still no additive technology for elastomers is the complex material
composition of vulcanizable rubbers. Due to the resulting rheological processing behavior in conjunction
with the required chemical cross-linking, the reaction requires a complex process chain. In contrast to
thermoplastic materials, vulcanizable rubber will not harden after being discharged from the nozzle.
Above a critical layer height, the structure deforms due to its own weight, so that an accurate build-up
process based on the shape is impossible. In addition, the subsequent vulcanization and crosslinking
of the rubber causes a reduction in the viscosity of the rubber compound due to the increase in
temperature, which results in a melting of the built-up structure and a total loss of the geometric shape.
Therefore, the rheological properties and the requirement of vulcanization for transferring into an
elastomer result in the following significant challenges for the additive process:

• a suitable method and process technology for processing and discharging the rubber material,
• supporting materials during the layer build-up, as well as
• material for stabilizing the shape during vulcanization.

The aim of this study is to investigate the extrusion-based process for 3D-printing of rubber, in order
to test the first mentioned challenge in technological terms. In contrast to the FDM process, where the
feed material has to be in filament form, the use of a screw extruder offers more possibilities regarding
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 3 of 13

the form of the feed material. The material can be processed, for example, in the form of powder,
granulates, or liquid or rubber stripes. In particular, extrusion-based 3D printing is already used for
non-thermoplastic materials such as ceramics [18], or cement-based composites [19]. Often biomaterials
are also processed using this additive procedure [20]. Furthermore, the extrusion-based process is also
a research area of interest for shape–memory alloys [21], and in the food industry [22]. Experimental
tests shall show whether 3D printing of rubber can be realized by a screw extrusion process. In the
literature, various investigations as well as studies on the optimization of the parameters for rubber
processing in screw extruders can be found [10–12]. The processing behavior is very complex, due to
the mutual influence of the process parameters. Nevertheless, in 3D printing, parameters such as screw
speed and plasticizing time are determined by the desired speed of the strand discharge. As a result,
these parameters are no longer available as influencing factors as usual. Thus, previous approaches
and methods of rubber extrusion cannot be transferred without further effort. For this purpose,
feasibility tests are carried out and trials are performed to determine the ideal process parameters.
Furthermore, the influences on the printing quality will be investigated. The consideration of the two
further challenges for the supporting and stabilizing structures is not the subject of the current study.
However, boundary conditions for further work can be derived from the results.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
A natural rubber (NR) as well as the synthetic rubbers nitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR) and
ethylene-propylene-diene rubber (EPDM) from the company Kraiburg (Waldkraiburg, Germany) [23],
are available as test materials for 3D printing tests. For good processing and dispensing from the
nozzle, the viscosity of the materials plays a particularly important role. Therefore, rubbers with a
different viscosity (Mooney viscosity) than natural rubber were considered. On the one hand, a rubber
with significantly lower viscosity (NBR) and on the other hand with significantly higher viscosity
(EPDM) were selected. For all three materials, the Mooney and the vulcanization conditions are listed
in the Table 1 according to the manufacturer’s specifications [23]. The materials are available in rubber
sheets and are cut into strips of approx. 50 × 5 × 2 mm3 for use in the test rig.

Table 1. The Mooney viscosity of the available rubbers (according to the manufacturer [23]).

Natural Ethylene-Propylene-Diene Nitrile-Butadiene

Rubber (NR) Rubber (EPDM) Rubber (NBR)
Mooney viscosity
57 112 37
(ML1 + 4; 100 ◦ C)
Vulcanization Conditions
160 ◦ C 170 ◦ C 170 ◦ C
Dumbbell specimen S2 (10 min)

2.2. Test Rig

The basis for the test rig for rubber compounds is an FDM printer. The printer had to be modified
with a screw extruder, as is also usual for the processing of rubbers in injection molding. Among other
things, the larger dimensions of a screw extruder and the higher weight resulted in the following
requirements for the FDM printer:

• Open frame—for sufficient installation space and accessibility

• Few moving axes on the extruder side—the influence of the additional weight of the screw
extruder on the dynamics of the printer should be reduced as far as possible
• Double extruder—this provides the possibility to build supporting structures made of other
materials (for further research work)
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 4 of 13

• Possibilities of software modification—possibilities of making specific adaptations to the program

sequences for rubber processing.

The FDM printer M3-ID from MAKERGEAR [24], is chosen for the test rig. The printer meets all
requirements. As a screw extruder, the pellet extruder is procured from the MAHOR XYZ shop [25].
The extruder, which is actually used for plastic pellets, is modified so that it can handle rubber strips
(removal of fan, open structure of material feed). Figure 1 shows the modified 3D printer and the main
parts of the screw extruder. After discharge from the nozzle, the rubber remains unvulcanized and
therefore it does not attain a mechanically stable state like a thermoplastic. In contrast to conventional
FDM printing, early and more extensive stabilization of the printed rubber on the platform is therefore
necessary. This stabilization has not been implemented for the current study; therefore, a production
of high or complex structures from rubber is not feasible in these experimental tests.

Figure 1. The MAKERGEAR M3-ID desktop 3D printer modified with a screw extruder.

2.3. Experimental Tests

2.3.1. Material Processing

Printing tests with the rubber materials were carried out on the test rig described above. The feed
of the material into the screw extruder was evaluated. Furthermore, the continuous discharge of the
strand at different temperatures was examined. For an adequate material transport in the extruder,
a sufficient flowability must be provided. This can be achieved by heating the rubber material,
which reduces the viscosity. However, the maximum temperature is limited, because above a certain
temperature the vulcanization already starts in the screw extruder. This temperature value depends on
the material that is used.

2.3.2. Identification of Printing Parameters

The SIMPLIFY3D printing software is used to generate the G-code. For this purpose, the following
parameters (illustrated in Figure 2a) in particular must be defined [26]:

• Extrusion multiplier (flow rate)

• Extrusion width
• Traverse speed
• Layer height basic layer
• Layer height
• Nozzle temperature
• Temperature printing bed.
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 5 of 13

Figure 2. (a) Visualization of the parameters to be set for 3D printing and (b) discharge of the rubber
material out of the nozzle, for measuring the strand diameter.

Different nozzle diameters are used for the measurement of the strand diameter. It is known
that due to the nozzle swell a strand expansion occurs after nozzle discharge [10,27]. The aim is to
determine this change of the strand’s cross-section for the rubber material. While the printer head
is stationary, the speed for the screw is set to a traverse speed (printing speed) of 40 mm/s and the
resulting strand is used for the measurement (Figure 2b). In addition, the measurement is carried out
for the speed of the screw with the traverse speeds (printing speeds) of 20 and 60 mm/s to evaluate
the effects on the strand diameter. The measured value is taken as the value for the extrusion width.
The nozzle temperature parameter is given by the results for material processing. The other parameters
are initially set to default values as for a polylactide (PLA) print. These are adjusted iteratively until a
good strand deposition is achieved. At the beginning, a glass plate is used as the printing platform.
If a good adhesion of the rubber to the glass surface is not achieved, an adhesion promoter (3DLAC) or
Kapton tape is available as an alternative surface.

2.3.3. Print Quality

In 3D printing of thermoplastic materials, it is common to print test parts for setup or quality
control. These usually have different two- or three-dimensional geometries [28]. For example,
the achievable surface quality, the maximum possible overhangs without supporting structures,
geometric dimensions and various three-dimensional shapes are evaluated. It can be assumed that
overhangs or 3D geometries cannot be produced with the viscous rubbers, if no supporting structures
are used. Therefore, the quality investigations in this paper focus on the dimensional accuracy and the
examination of the strand laydown itself. The latter is performed as the first test.
The experiment is intended to investigate what layer height can be achieved without a supporting
structure. It is unusual in 3D printing for layers to only be stacked on top of each other in one line.
Thus, for this test double strand layers are stacked on top of each other according to Figure 3 with
nozzle diameters of 0.4 and 0.8 mm. For this purpose, the print head deposits one strand on a length of
100 mm, makes a 180◦ curve, and then deposits a second strand on the same length in the opposite
direction. Afterwards, another 180◦ curve is made, whereby the head now changes to the next layer
height and again deposits such a double strand. On the one hand, the deposition of a strand after a
change of direction can be evaluated and on the other hand the number of layers up to the visible
change of the print quality can be counted.
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 6 of 13

Figure 3. Test procedure—stacking double strands with 3D printing: (a) the top view and (b) the
side view.

The second test is performed to evaluate the quality of the dimensional accuracy of the printed
shapes. For this reason, the two-dimensional test samples shown in Figure 4 were created, based on the
usual test prints [28]. Test forms for FDM printing usually start in the range of 10 mm [28]. Accordingly,
these dimensions are selected as the largest shapes in the test objects. The shapes become more filigree
to examine and evaluate the compliance of the dimensional accuracy and the printing behavior for
stronger changes of direction of the printer head. The quality of the inner contour is examined on
Sample 1 (Figure 4a) and the outer contour on Sample 2 (Figure 4b). The minimum dimensions of the
shapes for Sample 2 are restricted by the used nozzle diameter of 0.4 mm. For Sample 1 the minimum
dimensions of the shapes are set to 0.1 mm. For the printing tests, the parameters listed in Table 2
are set as the basic values. The parameters are then varied individually according to the column
“Parameter variation”. The shapes of the test samples with the best printing quality are measured in
order to estimate the limits of the printing accuracy. A statistical measurement of several samples is
not envisaged, as it can be assumed that the print quality depends mainly on the print parameters.
Repeatability of the 3D prints depends on the accuracy of the axes. The manufacturer specifies a
movement resolution of 1 µm per micro step, whereby a sufficient repeat accuracy is considered to
be given.

Figure 4. The models designed for 3D rubber printing based on the usual test prints [28]: (a) Sample
1 with geometric shapes as the inner contour and (b) Sample 2 with geometric shapes as the outer
contour (the minimum dimensions are limited by the nozzle diameter of 0.4 mm).

Table 2. The basic values and parameter variations for the printing tests.

Parameters Basic Value Parameter Variation

Traverse speed 40 mm/s 20 mm/s, 60 mm/s
Nozzle diameter 0.4 mm 0.8 mm
Number of layers Basic layer + 1 layer Basic layer + 5 layers
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 7 of 13

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Material Processing

During nozzle extraction of the materials NR and EPDM, blockages repeatedly occurred in the
screw extruder. Up to a nozzle temperature of 90 ◦ C, the viscosity was too high or the performance of
the screw extruder drive was insufficient. Above 90 ◦ C it was no longer possible to convey the two
materials in the screw after a short time, which was a sign of the start of cross-linking in the screw
extruder. Therefore, these two materials were excluded from further tests. In contrast, the NBR rubber
showed good and stable strand discharge from the extruder at 70 ◦ C. Consequently, all further listed
tests were carried out with the rubber NBR. For further studies, it is recommended to install a stronger
screw extruder drive in the test rig as well as to investigate the relationships between material data
(Table 1) and processing behavior in 3D printing.

3.2. Identification of Printing Parameters

The measurement results for identification of the parameter extrusion width with a printing speed
of 40 mm/s are listed in Table 3. The width was measured with a digital caliper with a measuring
accuracy of ±0.02 mm and a resolution of 0.01 mm. Five measurements were carried out for each
strand of length 500 mm. For a uniform measurement of the elastic material, the caliper was slid
together stepwise until the strands could no longer move due to friction in the jaws. The minimum
measured value, the maximum measured value, the average value and the average strand increase
in comparison to the nozzle diameter are summarized in Table 3. It is shown that the maximum
deviations within the strand width are less than ±0.02 mm from the mean value for each nozzle
diameter. Thus, the strand width remains stable for every nozzle diameter. In comparison with a
printing speed of 40 mm/s, the mean values of the strand diameters at a printing speed of 60 mm/s were
less than 1% larger, and at the printing speed of 20 mm/s the mean values of the strand diameters were
less than 1% smaller. The influence of these small deviations is considered negligible for the further
tests. However, the strand increase in relation to all nozzles is within a range of 19% to 34% compared
to the nozzle diameter. A dependence on the size of the nozzle diameters could not be recognized;
this is explained by production-related differences. Therefore, it is recommended to measure the strand
diameter when using a nozzle and then transfer the value to the software. The other parameters for
a nozzle diameter of 0.4 mm, determined iteratively via the printing behavior, are listed in Table 4.
For comparison, the default values for the PLA material, given by the software SIMPLIFY3D [26],
are also presented in Table 4. Nearly all default values for PLA printing resulted in good strand
laydown for the NBR rubber. The glass printing plate also proved to be a suitable printing platform.
Only the extrusion multiplier and the height for the basic layer were adjusted. The extrusion multiplier
had to be increased significantly from 0.9 to 5.0, as otherwise, the material quantity was not sufficient
and strand interruptions occurred repeatedly. Reducing the height of the basic layer from 90% to 20%
led to a significant improvement in adhesion to the glass surface.
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 8 of 13

Table 3. The measurement results for the strand diameter after the nozzle outlet (with a printing speed
40 mm/s).

Measured Diameter
Nozzle Diameter. Mean Value Increase to Nozzle Diameter
Min Max
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%)
0.25 0.33 0.34 0.334 34
0.3 0.36 0.37 0.364 21
0.4 0.52 0.54 0.524 31
0.5 0.64 0.67 0.654 31
0.6 0.73 0.77 0.746 24
0.8 0.94 0.95 0.948 19
1 1.2 1.22 1.212 21
1.5 1.81 1.82 1.816 21

Table 4. Printing parameters for NBR compared with PLA.

Polylactide (PLA)
NBR
(Default Values of the Software [26])
Extrusion multiplier 5.0 0.9
Extrusion width Results from Table 3 Nozzle diameter + 20%
Traverse speed 40 mm/s 40 mm/s
Layer height basic layer 20% Nozzle diameter 90% Nozzle diameter
Layer height 50% Nozzle diameter 50% Nozzle diameter
Temperature pressure bed 50 ◦ C 60 ◦ C
Printing surface Glass Glass

3.3. Print Quality

In the first test, strands were stacked on top of each other with 3D printing. Five runs were
performed with the nozzle having a diameter of 0.4 mm (layer height 0.2 mm) and five runs were
performed with a nozzle having a diameter of 0.8 mm (layer height 0.4 mm). In each case, 7 to 8
double strands could be laid on top of each other until there was an optical shift of the layers (Figure 5).
However, a major problem was found at the reversal point of the double strands. When changing the
contour direction, considerable deviations had occurred in some cases from layer number 2 onwards,
as shown in Figure 5 (side view).

Figure 5. The printing result for stacking double strands. Seven to eight layers were laid well on top of
each other until deviations occurred. The trigger of the deviations is probably caused by the reversal
point, as the side view illustrates.

In the second test, samples 1 and 2 were printed out of NBR and with the basic values from Table 2.
The printed samples demonstrated good optical results, which are shown in Figure 6a,b. Furthermore,
it can be seen that the nozzle drips from shape to shape. This can be avoided in the G-code through a
stronger material retraction in the screw. Subsequently, the tests with parameter variations (Table 2)
were realized. One parameter was changed and set back to the basic value before the next parameter
was changed. The results for the different parameters are summarized in Table 5.
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 9 of 13

Figure 6. Examples of printing results with the nozzle diameter of 0.4 mm. The prints show a good
formation of the geometric forms, but also a nozzle dripping: (a) Sample 1 and (b) Sample 2.

Table 5. The parameter variation and their effect on the 3D printing.

Parameters Effects on Printing

The lower traverse speed caused worse results compared to the base
value (40 mm/s). A good basic layer could be produced. However,
in the subsequent layer, deviations in the contours occurred more
frequently when the contour direction was changed. This could not be
Decreased traverse speed 20 mm/s noticed with the base value. The reason for this could be that a
minimum discharge speed from the nozzle is required for a good
layer-on-layer adhesion with rubber. Therefore, if a strand is placed on
another strand with less pressure, the adhesion will be reduced and
the strands will tilt or shift.
The higher traverse speed caused a worse result than the base value
(40 mm/s). A higher traverse speed also leads to a higher material
transport in the screw. However, this leads to a steady blocking of the
screw and thus to reduced material discharge and strand interruptions.
The reason for this is assumed to be that the material feed into the
Increased traverse speed 60 mm/s screw could not be heated up fast enough in the extruder to the nozzle
outlet. As a result, the viscosity is not lowered far enough for further
transport in the screw. A solution is to extend the screw length and
thus the temperature control zone. It would also be possible to
increase the drive power of the screw extruder or to heat the rubber
before feeding it into the screw.
For the nozzle diameter of 0.8 mm, both the basic layer height of
0.2 mm and the layer height of 0.4 mm (the half nozzle diameter) were
tested. As expected, the smaller geometric shapes were not
Increased extrusion width 0.8 mm manufactured as precisely. Furthermore, with the layer height of
0.4 mm the same problem occurred as observed with increasing the
traversing speed. The screw extruder was not able to process the
increased rubber quantity.
The printing of the basic layer and the first layer showed a visually
good result. From layer 2 on, first deviations occurred, which
increased significantly from layer to layer: The smaller the dimensions
of the geometric form, the greater the deviations. As an example,
Basic layer + 5 layers
Figure 5 shows the manufactured shapes. Further research should
investigate whether modified nozzle geometries produce better results.
In general, the viscous material has to be supplemented by another,
all-round supporting material to produce higher structures.

The parameter variation shows that for the current test rig the basic parameter values are already
suitable for the test samples. For this reason, the dimensional accuracy of the shapes on the samples
shown in the Figure 5 was measured with the UHX600 microscope at 20× magnification. The diameter
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 10 of 13

of the circle d (Figure 7a), the width w of the rectangle (Figure 7b), and the height h as well as the upper
angle α of the triangle (Figure 7c) were measured.

Figure 7. Measurement parameters of the geometric shapes: (a) the circle diameter d, (b) the rectangle
width w and (c) the triangle height h and angle α.

On the one hand, it can be seen in Figure 8; Figure 9 that for Sample 1 (inner contours) the shapes
turned out to be smaller than the set point, which can later be corrected by the software. On the other
hand, even smaller shapes could be produced than for test Sample 2. For Sample 2, the tolerances for
the circle diameter are ±0.2 mm and for the rectangle width even ±0.1 mm. The tolerances are within a
common range of ±0.5 mm for FDM printing with desktop printers [29]. All measured values for the
circle diameter and the rectangle widths were below this tolerance.
Of course, the accuracy is also strongly dependent on the precision of the axes. For the triangle
angles down to 20◦ , the tolerances are minimal and are below ±0.7◦ (Figure 10). However, the same
problems can be observed with the small circles and triangles as with the double-strand layers (Figure 5).
The smaller the diameter or angle of the shape becomes, the greater the change in direction for the
nozzle. At an angle of 10◦ , the nozzle moves 170◦ and shows significant deviations in strand deposition
compared to the other results. The increase in inaccuracies with increasing travel angle for the nozzle
is also reflected in the measurement for the triangle heights (Figure 11). If the direction of the printer
head changes rapidly or strongly, the strand can no longer be deposited well. This means that the
rubber does not grip well on the lower layer and the material is slightly tightened. Especially during
these printer head movements, the parameters in the software must be adjusted.

Figure 8. The deviations from the set point of the inner (Sample 1) and outer (Sample 2) circles.
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 11 of 13

Figure 9. The deviations from the set point of the inner (Sample 1) and outer (sample 2) rectangle width.

Figure 10. The deviations from the set point of the triangle angles of Sample 1 and Sample 2.

Figure 11. The height of the triangles of Sample 1 and Sample 2 at different angles. The set point of the
height for all triangles is 10 mm.

As a conclusion of the measurements, it can be stated that 3D printing of rubber can achieve a
dimensional accuracy comparable to that of other printable materials using the FDM process. It becomes
critical when circles are smaller than 4 mm and angles of 10◦ or smaller must be manufactured. In further
investigations, it is necessary to check if a variation in traverse speed or the material discharge would
provide better results, especially for such contours. An alternative nozzle geometry (e.g., rectangular
nozzle opening) could also have a positive effect.
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 12 of 13

4. Conclusions
In this paper, fundamental investigations were carried out on the 3D printing of rubber. An FDM
3D printer was modified with a screw extruder and test prints were made. The deposition of strands
on the table bed, the deposition of several strands on top of each other and the production of flat
two-dimensional geometric shapes show the feasibility of 3D printing of rubber. Simultaneously,
however, the enormous research potential for the development of a commercial process was revealed.
There are two key challenges. Firstly, the stability of the printed object is influenced by the rheological
material behavior and secondly, the implementation of the subsequent vulcanization process has not
yet been solved.
The investigations have shown that in particular when the travel direction of the extruder is
changed, inaccuracies in strand deposition occur. In order to solve this problem, further investigations
into the correlation between strand deposition and the travel speed as well as the material flow rate at
contours are necessary. Furthermore, it should be noted that due to the material behavior, structures
could collapse even at low layer heights. One approach to solve this problem, for example, could be a
material printed in parallel on all sides, which supports the overall structure from the first layer. At the
same time, this medium can serve as a form stabilizer during a subsequent vulcanization process.
Based on the findings, the test rig should also be further adapted to the requirements for rubber
printing. These future adaptations are, in particular, the reinforcement of the drive so that the force is
sufficient to discharge different rubber material as well as an adaptation of the material feed, which is
currently only designed for short rubber strips.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S. and E.O.; methodology, M.S. and E.O.; software, M.S.; formal
analysis, R.L. and E.O.; investigation, M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and
editing, W.-G.D., J.I. and R.L.; supervision, W.-G.D. and J.I.; project administration, W.-G.D., J.I. and R.L.; funding
acquisition, W.-G.D., J.I. and R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The publication of this article was funded by the Chemnitz University of Technology.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yap, C.Y.; Chua, C.K.; Dong, Z.L.; Liu, Z.H.; Zhang, D.Q.; Loh, L.E.; Sing, S.L. Review of selective laser
melting: Materials and applications. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2015, 2, 041101. [CrossRef]
2. Gokuldoss, P.K.; Kolla, S.; Eckert, J. Additive manufacturing processes: Selective laser melting, electron
beam melting and binder jetting—Selection guidelines. Materials 2017, 10, 672. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Smelov, V.G.; Sotov, A.V.; Murzin, S.P. Particularly selective sintering of metal powders by pulsed laser
radiation. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 685, 403–407. [CrossRef]
4. Sing, S.L.; Yeong, W.Y.; Wiria, F.E.; Tay, B.Y.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, L.; Tian, Z.; Yang, S. Direct selective laser
sintering and melting of ceramics: A review. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2017, 23, 611–623. [CrossRef]
5. Mokrane, A.; Boutaous, M.; Xin, S. Process of selective laser sintering of polymer powders: Modeling,
simulation, and validation. C. R. Méc. 2018, 346, 1087–1103. [CrossRef]
6. Singh, R.; Garg, H.K. Fused deposition modeling—A state of art review and future applications. Ref. Modul.
Mater. Sci. Mater. Eng. 2016, 1–20. [CrossRef]
7. Schmidleithner, C.; Kalaskar, D.M. Stereolithography. In 3D Printing; Intechopen: London, UK, 2018; pp. 3–22.
[CrossRef]
8. Sander, J.; Wei, S.; Pei, Z. Experimental investigation of stratasys J750 PolyJet printer: Effects of orientation
and layer thickness on mechanical properties. In Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition IMECE, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 12–14 November 2019. [CrossRef]
9. Brandt, M. Laser Additive Manufacturing: Materials, Design, Technologies and Applications; Woodhead Publishing:
Duxford, UK, 2017; pp. 439–450.
10. Myer, K. Extrusion processes. In Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook; Processing and Materials, 1st ed.;
Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 227–266.
Polymers 2020, 12, 2266 13 of 13

11. Princi, E. Manufacturing and transformation technologies. In Rubber—Science and Technology, 1st ed.; Walter
De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 147–164.
12. Röthemeyer, F.; Sommer, F. Verfahren zur Herstellung von Elastomerformteilen. In Kautschuk-Technologie
Werkstoffe—Verarbeitung—Produkte, 3rd ed.; Hanser Verlag: Munich, Germany, 2013; pp. 823–921.
13. Cohen, D.; Sargeant, M.; Somers, K. 3-D printing takes shape. McKinsey Q. 2014, 1, 1–6.
14. Drobny, J.G. Elasticity and Elastomers. In Handbook of Thermoplastic Elastomers, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK,
2014; pp. 1–11.
15. ACEO® Technology. Available online: https://www.aceo3d.com/technology/ (accessed on 7 July 2020).
16. Patel, D.K.; Sakhaei, A.M.; Layani, M.; Zhang, B.; Ge, Q.; Magdassi, S. Highly stretchable and UV curable
elastomers for digital light processing based 3D printing. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Scheungraber, P. Apparatus and Method for 3D Printing a Workpiece of a Rubbery Non-Thermoplastic.
Material. Patent No. DE102017207737A1, 8 November 2018.
18. Faes, M.; Valkenaers, H.; Vogeler, F.; Vleugels, J.; Ferraris, E. Extrusion-Based 3D printing of ceramic
components. Procedia CIRP 2015, 28, 76–81. [CrossRef]
19. Buswell, R.A.; Leal de Silva, W.R.; Jones, S.Z.; Dirrenberger, J. 3D printing using concrete extrusion:
A roadmap for research. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 112, 37–49. [CrossRef]
20. Placone, J.K.; Engler, A.J. Recent advances in extrusion-based 3D printing for biomedical applications.
Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7, 1701161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Taylor, S.L.; Ibeh, A.J.; Jakus, A.E.; Shah, R.N.; Dunand, D.C. NiTi-Nb micro-trusses fabricated via
extrusion-based 3D-printing of powders and transient-liquid-phase sintering. Acta Biomater. 2018, 76,
359–370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Pitayachaval, P.; Sanklong, N.; Thongrak, A. A review of 3D food printing technology. Matec Web Conf. 2018,
213, 1–5. [CrossRef]
23. KRAIBURG. Available online: https://www.kraiburg.de/ (accessed on 7 July 2020).
24. MAKERGEAR M3-ID 3D Printer. Available online: https://www.makergear.com/products/m3-id (accessed
on 7 July 2020).
25. PELLET EXTRUDER. Available online: https://mahor.xyz/ (accessed on 7 July 2020).
26. SIMPLIFY3D. Available online: https://www.simplify3d.com/ (accessed on 31 July 2020).
27. Domm, M. Printing of three-dimensional polymer composite structures with continuous fiber reinforcement.
In Structure and Properties of Additive Manufactured Polymer Components; Part 2; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 333–358. [CrossRef]
28. TESTPRINTS. Available online: https://all3dp.com/2/3d-printer-test-print-10-best-3d-models-to-torture-
your-3d-printer/ (accessed on 7 July 2020).
29. Accuracy of FDM Printing. Available online: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/dimensional-
accuracy-3d-printed-parts/#fdm (accessed on 31 July 2020).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).