3D Printing challenging injection-molding with Project Path

In our previous experiments, highlighted in the article “We Elevate 3D Printing to injection-molding standards?”, we achieved remarkable results: a 15% increase in maximum strength, exceeding material specifications thanks to Advanced Additive’s optimization. Even more impressive, our optimized 3D-printed parts came fascinatingly close to the performance of injection-molded PLA.

To answer the question above, we decided to push the boundaries further with ongoing tensile-tests. This time, the focus was on comparing our optimized parts with injection molding to better understand the impact of Project Path on mechanical strength and consistency. We conducted a series of experiments at the Technical University of Rosenheim featuring three component types: standard Cura slicing, Cura optimized with Advanced Additive’s Project Path, and injection-molded parts as the benchmark.

Test Setup

To ensure robust comparisons, we designed the following test configurations:

• Reference Parts: Injection-molded components, which served as our performance benchmark. The injection-molded parts were produced from the original filament granulate, using gating points designed for linear filling of the parts as a single strand. The same temperatures as used in 3D printing were applied, with extended cooling times ensuring deformation-free demolding. Despite these measures, the total process time remained under 2 minutes per sample.
• Test Series 1: Conventional parts sliced with Cura and optimized parts by Advanced Additive using a 0.8 mm nozzle, alternating diagonal infill (45°; 135°). Print duration: approximately 4.5 hours for 5 samples printed simultaneously to simulate real production cycles.
• Test Series 2: Conventional parts sliced with Cura and optimized parts by Advanced Additive using a 0.4 mm nozzle, alternating diagonal infill (45°; 135°). Print duration: approximately 9 hours for 5 samples printed simultaneously.

All components were printed with the same filament, and injection molding utilized the same material. Print speeds were intentionally kept low and well below maximum settings to eliminate potential influences from slipping filament or pressure inconsistencies within the nozzle. This approach ensured highly controlled and comparable results.

By employing these configurations, we aimed to assess the effects of nozzle size and toolpath optimization on maximum force, comparing 3D-printed parts to their injection-molded counterparts.

---

Aesthetic breakthrough with 3D printing

One of the most striking observations was the visual quality of the optimized parts. Even at a glance, the parts printed with Project Path closely resembled injection-molding. The surface and layer consistency were far superior to conventionally 3D-printed parts. Take a another look at our parts here.

---

Results: Strength That competes with Injection Molding

But is it more than just looks? Our tests revealed that the benefits of Project Path extend visual improvements. The mechanical performance of the parts demonstrates how close 3D printing can come to injection molding. Take a closer look at the graphs below – it’s striking how our optimized parts (blue) nearly match the performance of injection-molded components (orange).

---

---

Less fluctuations, better quality

Beyond improvements in maximum strength, our optimized parts also exhibited significantly reduced fluctuations in mechanical performance. Consistency is critical for ensuring reliability in practical applications, and our results demonstrate that Advanced Additive’s approach delivers this with remarkable success – especially when using a 0.8 mm nozzle.

0,8mm nozzle:

• Cura-produced parts displayed 67% more variation in standard deviation compared to injection-molded components.
• Project Path, however, not only closed the gap but exceeded expectations, showing 2% less variation than injection-molded parts!

0,4mm nozzle:

• Cura-produced parts exhibited 3.3 times the standard deviation of injection molding, a considerable deviation from desired quality.
• Project Path managed to reduce this significantly, achieving 2 times the standard deviation of injection molding.

While the 0.8 mm nozzle process is already achieving near parity with injection molding, the 0.4 mm nozzle results suggest there is room for further refinement. This indicates a clear path forward to optimize process parameters and further improve strategies, as our ultimate goal remains to consistently meet or exceed injection molding quality across all configurations.

---

From Vision to Reality: The Path Forward

These findings mark another milestone in our journey to optimize 3D printing. Our components not only achieve almost the same strength as injection-molded parts, but they also demonstrate improvements in quality and consistency. And just to mention: This isn’t even the final form of Project Path. We’re only scratching the surface of what’s possible.

Next, we’re diving into testing better strategies—we already have something in development that promises to deliver even greater consistency across various nozzle sizes.

Additionally, we acknowledge that no real-world part experiences forces solely in the X and Y directions. To address this, our upcoming research will focus on how our optimizations impact the performance of components in the Z direction, particularly their interlayer strength.

This is just the beginning of what Project Path can achieve, and we’re excited to share our future breakthroughs as we continue to redefine what’s possible in 3D printing.

Are you ready to see for yourself how Advanced Additive can transform your 3D printed parts? Visit our online-platform to explore your possibilities: