3D Printing With Shape Memory Polymers (SMP) For Morphing Facades

3D Printing with Shape Memory Polymers (SMP) for
Morphing Facades
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Bachelor of Engineering
In
Civil Engineering (Structures)
By
Phyo Paing Soe @ Chandan Kumar

450426142
Supervisor: Dr Mike Bambach

School of Civil Engineering
University of Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia
November 2018
Disclaimers
Student Disclaimer
The work comprising this thesis is substantially my own, and to the extent that any part of
this work is not my own I have indicated that it is not my own by acknowledging the source
of that part or those parts of the work. I have read and understood the University of Sydney
Student Plagiarism: Coursework Policy and Procedure. I understand that failure to comply
with the University of Sydney Student Plagiarism: Coursework Policy and Procedure can lead to the
University commencing proceedings against me for potential student misconduct under chapter 8 of
the University of Sydney By-Law 1999 (as amended).
Author: Phyo Paing Soe @ Chandan Kumar
Signed: _
Departmental Disclaimer
This thesis was prepared for the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Sydney,
Australia, and describes investigations into 3D printing with shape memory polymers (SMP) for
morphing facades. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Sydney or any of the sponsoring
parties to this project.
2
Acknowledgements
Dr Mike Bambach – Thesis Supervisor, The University of Sydney
Wentao Jin and Joseph Shen – Thesis Partners
Dr Andy Wang – Academic Staff and John Mai – PhD Student, who helped with the 3D printing
process under the guidance of Dr Mike Bambach at the University of Sydney
3
1. SUMMARY
This thesis project aimed to investigate the material properties of Shape Memory Polymers
(SMP) and to design working prototypes of morphing façade panels using 3D printing of SMP.
Morphing facades with the use of SMP could be a potential solution to high energy
consumption and high greenhouse gas emission which occur due to HVAC-driven buildings.
Since there is a lack of existing research on the suitability of using SMP in adaptive facades, this
project aimed to collect as much as data on SMP in façade applications as possible.
The project consisted of four stages: discovering the 3D printing process of SMP filament,
investigating the material properties of SMP at different temperatures, designing and building
three different prototypes of morphing façade panels which were based on two movement
strategies: hinge-mechanism and biomimetic-mechanism, and testing and evaluation of the
prototypes.
The material parameters of SMP investigated were yield tensile and compressive strengths,
ultimate tensile strength, stiffness and ductility. They all showed a decreasing trend with
increasing temperature. In fact, the drop in these parameter values were more pronounced at
temperatures just below the transition temperature (Ttrans) of SMP. Other than that, SMP was
found out to be reasonably strong and stiff for façade applications, and very ductile even at high
temperatures of 70°C.
The shape memory cycle of SMP was thoroughly understood and its working 3D printing
settings were successfully investigated. Consequently, the three prototypes were designed and
built using CAD drawing on AutoCAD and 3D printing using the settings investigated earlier.
Finally, the three prototypes built were tested and judged against four different real-world-
situation-based design criteria. The Curved Hinge prototype based on hinge mechanism passed
all the criteria whereas the Flectofin prototype based on biomimetic mechanism only passed one
criterion.
4
Table of Contents
Disclaimers........................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 3
1. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 4
2. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 8
3. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9
3.1. Developments in Dynamic Façade Systems ......................................................................... 9
3.2. Shape Memory Materials (SMMs) ...................................................................................... 10
3.2.1. Shape Memory Polymers (SMPs) ................................................................................ 10
3.2.2. Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs).................................................................................... 13
3.2.3. Shape Memory Hybrids ............................................................................................... 13
3.3. Movement Mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 14
3.3.1. Examples of shape morphing façade projects incorporating SMMs ........................... 14
3.3.2. Biomimetics ................................................................................................................. 15
3.4. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 3D Printing with SMP and ABS .............................. 17
3.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 18
4. THE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 19
5. 3D PRINTING PROCESS AND WORKING PRINTING SETTINGS FOR SMP ................. 20
5.1. General 3D printing process ................................................................................................ 20
5.2. Input filament details (SMP) ............................................................................................... 20
5.3. Finding working 3D printing settings for SMP ................................................................... 20
6. MATERIAL TESTS .................................................................................................................. 22
6.1. Compression Tests .............................................................................................................. 22
6.1.1. CAD drawing and 3D printing ..................................................................................... 22
6.1.2. Compression Test Method ........................................................................................... 23
6.1.3. Compression Test Results ............................................................................................ 24
6.1.4. Compression Test Discussions..................................................................................... 27
5
6.2. Tensile Tests ........................................................................................................................ 28
6.2.1. CAD Drawing and 3D Printing.................................................................................... 28
6.2.2. Tensile Test Method..................................................................................................... 29
6.2.3. Tensile Test Results ..................................................................................................... 30
6.2.4. Tensile Test Discussions .............................................................................................. 34
6.3. Shape Memory Cycle of SMP ............................................................................................. 37
6.3.1. Shape Memory Cycle Test Method ............................................................................. 37
6.3.2. Shape Memory Cycle Test results ............................................................................... 37
6.2.3. Shape Memory Cycle Test Discussions .......................................................................... 38
7. PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND ASSEMBLY ............................................................................. 40
7.1. Flat Hinge - Hinge Mechanism ........................................................................................... 40
7.2. Curved Hinge - Hinge Mechanism ...................................................................................... 41
7.3. Flectofin Inspired Mechanism ............................................................................................. 43
8. PROTOTYPE TESTS ................................................................................................................ 45
8.1. Flat Hinge Prototype ........................................................................................................... 45
8.1.1. Flat Hinge Test Method ............................................................................................... 45
8.1.2. Flat Hinge Test Results ................................................................................................ 45
8.1.3. Flat Hinge Prototype Test Discussion .......................................................................... 46
8.2. Curved Hinge Prototype ...................................................................................................... 47
8.2.1. Curved Hinge Test Method .......................................................................................... 47
8.2.2. Curved Hinge Test Results .......................................................................................... 47
8.2.3. Curved Hinge Test Discussions ................................................................................... 48
8.3. Flectofin Prototype .............................................................................................................. 49
8.3.1. Flectofin Prototype Test Methodble ............................................................................ 49
8.3.2. Flectofin Prototype Test Results .................................................................................. 50
8.3.3. Flectofin Prototype Test Discussions ........................................................................... 51
9. PROTOTYPE DESIGN EVALUATION .................................................................................. 53
9.1. Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 53
6
9.2. Design Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 53
9.2.1. Ability to show 100% ARR at Ttrans ............................................................................. 53
9.2.2. Ability to open/close within 10 mins with 100% ARR. .............................................. 54
9.2.3. Ability to exhibit strength to withstand external wind pressure .................................. 54
9.2.4. Ability to rotate up to 90° with 100% .......................................................................... 55
9.2.5. Design Evaluation Outcomes ....................................................................................... 55
10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ............................................................................. 57
11. References ............................................................................................................................... 58
12. Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 60
12.1. Equations ......................................................................................................................... 60
12.2. Raw Data of Prototype Tests ........................................................................................... 60
12.2.1. Flat Hinge Prototype Test Raw Data ........................................................................ 60
12.2.2. Flat Hinge Prototype Test Raw Data ........................................................................ 61
12.2.3. Flectofin Prototype Test Raw Data .......................................................................... 61
7
2. INTRODUCTION
At the present time, humanity is becoming more and more proactive in looking for ways to
minimize the negative impacts of the technological advancements that have been happening.
One of such negative impacts is the high energy demands of buildings mainly for heating,
ventilation and lighting. These energy requirements are typically fulfilled using non-renewable
resources such as oil, coal and natural gas. The ever-increasing building energy consumption is
not only using up the fossil fuels but also degrading the environment with air pollution and
global warming.
In order to tackle this issue, the concept of Climate Adaptive Building Shells (CABS) brings a
new hope to reduce the building energy needs. CABS are dynamic building façades that sense
external weather conditions and undergo morphing accordingly to provide internal user comfort.
Conventional static facades, on the other hand, heavily depend on Heating, ventilation and air-
condition (HVAC) and lighting systems to maintain the comfort levels of users within the
building skin. The lack of reliance on HVAC systems makes buildings with dynamic building
facades much more energy efficient.
For the automatic adaptive movement of facades to come into effect, the existing technology
makes use of mechanical systems that require electrical energy to some extent. Instead, to
further reduce the reliance on mechanical systems and electricity, shape memory effect of
certain Shape Memory Materials (SMMs) such as Shape Memory Polymers (SMPs) can be
utilised to perform the same functions. Very little research has been done on these SMMs for
such architectural uses.
This project investigated how these smart materials, specifically SMPs, behaved in the
application of dynamic façades to add more database of knowledge to the current literature. This
included understanding the shape memory cycle of SMP, investigating its mechanical properties
such as strength and stiffness at different temperatures and finding its optimal 3D printing
settings. To demonstrate the feasibility of SMP in façades, the project also involved designing
and building three different small-scale prototypes of dynamic façade panels using Polyurethane
SMP, Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), CAD drawing and 3D printing. Finally, these
prototypes were tested and evaluated based on different design criteria such as the ability to
demonstrate sufficient movement, ability to fully operate at room temperature, etc.
8
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1. Developments in Dynamic Façade Systems
The role of traditional static façade system is to protect the internal building space from the
external surroundings. These systems depend on energy-draining HVAC systems to provide
internal comfort for building occupants. This also indirectly affects the environment with
increased greenhouse gas emissions from the HVAC systems and from burning of energy-
generating fossil fuels. In other words, the internal comfort of buildings with static facades
come at the expense of the natural resources and environmental quality.
A study done by Pe´rez-Lombard et al. (2008) states that buildings, residential and commercial,
had a contribution between 20% to 40% to total energy consumption in the developed countries.
It elaborated that HVAC systems accounted for 50% of the total building energy consumption
which was roughly equivalent to 20% of total energy consumption in the United States. On the
other hand, a report on mitigation of climate change done by Edenhofer et al. (2014) presented
the energy-related greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions from buildings in 2010. It mentions that
buildings contributed to 19% of energy-related global GHG emissions and nearly 33% of global
black carbon emissions. The best way to curb these negative impacts from buildings would be
by minimizing the energy usage through efficiency in energy usage. Facades play a big role in
the energy requirements of a building by controlling heat loss from inside to outside, solar load
from outside to inside, daylight level and ventilation. Therefore, dynamic façade systems or
CABS would be one of the best solutions to consider as they can adjust to climatic conditions
and maintain internal comfort without consuming loads of energy and releasing GHG
emissions.
CABS is defined by Loonen et al. (2010) as follows:- “A climate adaptive building shell has the
ability to repeatedly and reversibly change some of its functions, features or behaviour over
time in response to changing performance requirements and variable boundary conditions. By
doing this, the building shell improves overall building performance in terms of primary energy
consumption while maintaining acceptable indoor environmental quality”. There have been a
few studies done which have measured the actual performance of dynamic shading systems
using full-scaled prototypes. A paper done by Elzeyadi (2017) reports on the performances of
different dynamic shading typologies and their impacts on energy savings for a model office
space in ASHARE Climate Zone 4C in the USA. Various dynamic shading typologies were
tested which included Automated Exterior Blinds, dynamic solar screens and other moving
façade devices. Considering that the amount of energy reductions achieved depends on shading
9
types, building envelope systems, control systems and climatic variations, the paper showed that
most of the dynamic shading systems performed well for a typical model building in the
mentioned climate zone with average Energy Utilization Intensity (EUI) savings between 20%
to 30%. It should be noted that the dynamic shading systems mentioned in this study appeared
to have mechanical systems that have separate sensors and actuation motors to perform climatic
adaptation. These systems do require some extent of electrical energy.
Current research on future dynamic facades is looking to develop solutions that do not consist of
mechanical systems (Fiorito, et al., 2016). Fiorito, et al. (2016) stated that the ability to cut
down the energy required to perform adaptive functions were deemed to be supplementary
attributes of innovative solar shadings. They also added that such objectives were found to be
achieved either by considering biomimetic approach and/or by specifying smart materials.
3.2. Shape Memory Materials (SMMs)

For adaptive structures like dynamic facades to be functional, a system of sensors and actuators
are needed that can initiate changes in response to stimuli. Conventional systems have two
separate parts: sensors and actuators. A smart material combines these two different functions in
one material (Fiorito, et al., 2016). Fiorito et al. further explain that currently, no solar shading
devices are completely made of such smart materials due to cost and material property issues.
Stimulus-Responsive Materials (SRMs) are smart materials that can sense changes in the
surroundings and change their physical or chemical properties in response (Fiorito, et al., 2016).
These SRMs can be classified into two major groups: Shape Change Materials (SCMs) that
change their shape in the presence of a suitable stimulus (Sun, et al., 2012) and Shape Memory
Materials (SMMs) that can hold a modified temporary shape until a right stimulus is applied to
initiate the shape recovery cycle so that they go back to their original shape. The latter group of
materials can be easily induced by temperature changes which makes them very suitable to be
used in dynamic solar shadings. The SMMs can be further classified into three groups: Shape
Memory Polymers (SMPs), Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs) and Shape Memory Hybrids
(SMHs) (Fiorito, et al., 2016). SMHs are fairly new in research and applications compared to
the other two. These three different SMMs are further presented in detail in the following sub-
sections according to their relevance in potential applications in dynamic façade systems.
3.2.1. Shape Memory Polymers (SMPs)

SMPs have been popular in many uses in recent years due to their lower densities and costs
when compared to SMAs (Fiorito, et al., 2016). Its application spans many areas such as smart
fabrics, intelligent medical devices, heat-shrinkable tubes for electronics, etc (Behl & Lendlein,
10
2007). There are over 20 different types of SMPs and the most popular types are thermoplastic
polyurethanes and epoxy SMPs (Fiorito, et al., 2016).
Polymers are made of chemically bonded groups of molecules called monomers. The shape
memory effect only depends on the molecular architecture and does not need a certain chemical
composition in the repeating units (Behl & Lendlein, 2007). Therefore, the inherent properties
of the polymers such as mechanical properties can be modified according to the requirements of
an application by molecular parameter variations. Due to these variations, SMPs can have
different behaviours and types.
SMPs can be actuated by different stimuli such as heat, light, electricity, magnetism and
moisture (Fiorito, et al., 2016). However, heat-induced SMPs will be focussed on in this project.
Otsuka & Wayman (1998) explained the fixing cycle of heat-induced SMPs. SMPs can have
two different phases: fixed original shape phase and modified temporary shape phase. They also
have a characteristic temperature called transition temperature (Ttrans) which is the key
parameter for describing heat-induced SMPs. When an SMP is manufactured or produced, it
holds a fixed original shape. Once this SMP is heated up to its Ttrans, it becomes relatively soft
and it can be deformed into any temporary shape through an applied external force. If the
polymer is then cooled below Ttrans by holding the applied deformation (programming phase),
the new temporary shape becomes fixed until it is heated back to its Ttrans. It returns to its
original shape when heated back to its Ttrans (recovery phase), releasing the applied stress it has
stored. Figure 3.2.1.a below illustrates the fixing cycle of an SMP in 3D coordinate system of
Figure 3.2.1.a: Illustration of the fixing cycle on of an SMP material in a 3D coordinate system (Behl & Lendlein,
2007).
11
temperature, strain and applied stress. Depending on the type of network chains the polymers
consist of, SMPs can be categorised into the following: amorphous and semicrystalline. Ttrans for
amorphous SMP is called glass transition temperature (Tg) whereas it is called melting
temperature (Tm) for semicrystalline SMP.
Another key parameter used to describe the behaviour of SMP is the strain recovery ratio (Rf)
(Kolesov, et al., 2009). It is expressed as follows:
𝜀𝑝𝑟 − 𝜀𝑟𝑒𝑐,𝑚
𝑅𝑓 = 𝜀𝑝𝑟
𝜀𝑝𝑟 is the strain produced by stretching during the programming phase of the polymer whereas
𝜀𝑟𝑒𝑐,𝑚 is the remaining strain after the completion of the programming phase. Fiorito et al. (2016)
indicates that SMPs are highly elastic and can deform up to a strain value of 800%.
Other major parameters for SMPs are the setting/fixing temperature (Ts) and the deformation
temperature (Td). Td is the temperature at which the polymer becomes soft and easy to be
deformed. Ts is the temperature at which the temporary shape gets fixed and no more external
stress is required to maintain the temporary shape below this temperature. These temperatures are
expressed as follows (Rousseau, 2008):
𝑇𝑑 = (𝑇𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 + ∆𝑇)
𝑇𝑠 = (𝑇𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 − ∆𝑇)
For amorphous polymers, ∆𝑇 has a typical value of around 20 °C. On the other hand, ∆𝑇 for
semicrystalline polymers have a typical value of around 40 °C. Moreover, the setting
temperature (Ts) for semicrystalline polymers is defined as the temperature of crystallization
(Tc):
𝑇𝑠 = 𝑇𝑐 = (𝑇𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 − ∆𝑇)
The transition temperature (Ttrans) for the most commonly used SMP, Thermoplastic
Polyurethane, manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, is found to be between 40 °C to 50
°C (Leng, et al., 2011).
Fiorito et al. (2016) mentioned that several other properties for SMPs were still under study at
that time. All the important parameters and properties relevant to SMPs have been presented in
this section so far except the durability. Fiorito et al. (2016) also stated that SMPs were found to
be durable only up to 200 fixing cycles and they could be damaged by external weather
conditions. Durability is the only issue that does not go in favour of SMPs from becoming an
12
ideal smart material for dynamic facades which are cyclic in nature and vulnerable to external
weather. Nevertheless, morphing effect, density, transition temperature, flexibility and cost, all
go in SMPs’ favour. Finally, it should also be noted that an external force is always required in
every fixing cycle of the polymer for it to acquire a modified temporary shape before it re-
establishes itself to its fixed original shape.
3.2.2. Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs)

SMAs have been in use for many years. Due to their biocompatibility and high resistance to
corrosion and electrical conductivity, SMAs have been applied in various sectors, mainly in
clinical applications (Otsuka & Wayman, 1998). Their shape memory effect can also be induced
by heat and they have different characteristic temperatures including the transition temperature.
Generally, they can be classified into three groups depending on their base alloy: NiTi based,
Cu-based and Fe-based. The most used SMAs are NiTi alloys due to their higher recoverable
strain (~7%) and higher actuation stress (up to 500 MPa) among the three (Sun, et al., 2012). In
comparison to SMPs, SMAs can deform only up to 10% strain (against 800% strain). Another
disadvantage of SMAs is that there is no standard for the characterisation of the material. They
can exhibit different behaviour due to various martensitic configurations they can have.
Therefore, proper specification of the material is needed when a certain behaviour of the
material is required (Sun, et al., 2012). However, SMAs were found to be much more durable
than SMPs for façade applications as they were found to be durable for more than 200,000
cycles (against 200 cycles for SMPs) and resistant against corrosion and external weather
(Fiorito, et al., 2016). The mechanism behind the shape memory effect of SMAs is not studied
in detail because this project mainly focusses on SMPs for the utilisation of the shape memory
effect in dynamic façade applications.
3.2.3. Shape Memory Hybrids

SMHs are compositions of matrix and inclusions which have no chemical interactions between
each other. Moreover, these constituents are well-known and have no shape memory capabilities
on their own (Sun, et al., 2012). These materials are recently discovered and are compelling
since in-depth expertise in material science is not required to design them. Sun et al. (2012) also
mentioned that the shape memory effect of an SMH is similar to that of an SMP. A suitable
SMH for solar shading facades would be a silicon and wax hybrid that can be thermally
induced. Not much study has been done on these and more research is required to understand
the important properties of these materials for façade applications.
13
3.3. Movement Mechanisms
This section reviews the different ways the morphing techniques of dynamic facades can be
designed. Currently, there is not any research work in the literature that presents projects on
dynamic shading systems where SMPs perform both sensor and actuator functions. Only one
project is found in the literature where SMP is partially used as an actuator in a solar shading
device. The project is called Sun Shading which is discussed further in the following sub-
section. Other relevant projects with various movement mechanisms are also presented which
either use SMAs or biomimicry to achieve morphing capabilities in façades.
3.3.1. Examples of shape morphing façade projects incorporating SMMs

The projects discussed in this sub-section do not use mechanical systems and used SMMs
instead to achieve shape changing capabilities.
Figure 3.3.1.a: Illustration of movement actions of façade components with closed and open configurations for
Project Sun Shading (Fiorito, et al., 2016).
Figure 3.3.1.a shows the movement patterns of façade components with closed and open
configurations for the project, Sun Shading. SMAs and SMPs are integrated into the
components to act as smart actuators (Lignarolo, et al., 2011). They provide the façade panel
with rotational movement of 1 degree of freedom with non-axial swiveling action as illustrated
in Figure 3.3.1.a. The SMMs are not used as the main heat sensors like the ones used in this
project move only at around 90 °C. To make them move around normal external temperatures, a
photovoltaic converter is used to convert solar radiation into electric current. These currents
then indirectly produce the required heat to make the actuators move depending on the external
solar intensity. In this way, the shading can be controlled depending on the solar intensity.
Figure 3.3.1.b shows the movement patterns of the façade system with closed and open
configurations for the project, Smart Screen. In this project, SMAs are integrated into the façade
14
system to initiate the movement. They provide the overlapping façade panels with a vertical
translation movement with 1 degree of freedom as shown in Figure 3.3.1.b to achieve the
required shading configurations (Decker & Yeadon, 2010). Fiorito et al. (2016) stated that the
heat source for actuation in this project was provided by solar radiation. However, the heat
sensors used were not specified.
Figure 3.3.1.b: Illustration of movement actions of façade system with closed and open configurations for
Project Smart Screen (Fiorito, et al., 2016).
3.3.2. Biomimetics
Biomimetics is defined as “the abstraction of good design from nature” by Jeronimidis &
Atkins (1995). Its aim is to find efficient solutions from nature to solve problems in human
lives. Plants have gone through millennia of survival and evolved as living organisms that can
respond to its surroundings. For example, a venus flytrap closes its traps to catch and consume
an insect when it senses the insect on its leaf. It exhibits sensor and actuator functions. Similar
kinds of functions and processes can be studied from such plants and applied to adaptive
building structures like facades.
Biomimetics has two kinds of approaches: bottom-up and top-down (Fiorito, et al., 2016). The
bottom-up approach primarily studies the biology or science of nature and then applies them to
suitable engineering uses. This makes the process slow but more innovative. On the other hand,
the top-down approach identifies and defines an engineering problem and then finds out
solutions from nature to solve the problem. This process is generally faster but it only finds the
solution to the defined problem.
15
Figure 3.3.2.a shows the illustration of the movement patterns of façade components with closed
and open configurations for a project called Flectofin. This project is a good example of
following the bottom-up approach of biomimetics. It involves a hingeless movement mechanism
of façade components which are made of lightweight Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFPR).
Figure 3.3.2.a illustrates the backbone and lamella of the façade component. When an external
force is applied to the backbone to bend it, the lamella responds by turning 90°. The movement
mechanism was inspired by the reversible and repeatable movements of a plant called Strelitzia
Reginae (Lienhard, et al., 2011). Instead of using any mechanical system or any SMM, these
movements were achieved from the elasticity of the material used and the distribution of its
fibres by decreasing the stresses within them (Fiorito, et al., 2016). This was made possible by
studying how the plant, Strelitzia Reginae, achieved the reduction in stresses by arranging its
material and fibres anisotropically. The study required the help of computer simulations and
prototypes (Fiorito, et al., 2016). It should be noted that unlike the other projects using SMMs
which needed solar radiation or heat to cause movement, this prototype needs an external force.
Figure 3.3.2.a: Illustration of movement actions of façade components with closed and open configurations for
Project Flectofin (Fiorito, et al., 2016).
16
3.4. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 3D Printing with SMP and ABS
Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) is an accumulative manufacturing process in which an
object is built by deposition of melted material layer-by-layer in a pre-determined path
(Varotsis, 2018). The deposition materials typically used are thermoplastics such as
Acrylonitrile Butadiene (ABS), Polylactic Acid (PLA) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
that come in a form of filament wires. This manufacturing process is commonly called 3D
printing which prints a physical object out of a digitally drawn file.
Figure 3.4.a: Schematic of a typical FDM 3D printer (Varotsis, 2018).
Figure 3.4.a shows the schematic of a typical FDM 3D printer. Varotsis (2018) explains how it
works. Firstly, the required plastic filament is loaded into the printer which is then fed to the hot
extrusion head where it melts. The extrusion head can move in a 3-dimensional x-y-z coordinate
system. The nozzle then extrudes the melted material into thin strands which are deposited
layer-by-layer onto the bed platform at locations predetermined by the digital drawing file fed to
the 3D printer. The extruded material cools and solidifies immediately after extrusion. This can
be accelerated using cooling fans attached to the extrusion head. The layer-by-layer printing
proceeds until the entire 3D object is printed.
Giang (2018) states that ABS is one of the most popular desktop FDM printed materials and is
ideal for applications requiring strength, ductility, machinability and thermal stability. However,
he also noted that the material is susceptible to warping when 3D printed.
There are very few records of 3D printing done with SMP in the literature. Yang, et al. (2015)
carried out experiments on 3D printing of SMP. Instead of using manufactured SMP filaments,
they extruded the filament by themselves from purchased SMP pellets from SMP Technologies.
17
The SMP used were semi-crystalline thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer. They managed to
print a small pyramid model. In comparison to the 3D printing of ABS, they encountered a
problem of insufficient cooling of the deposited SMP material to bring its temperature below the
glass transition temperature (Tg) of around 45 °C. However, this was overcome by promoting air
circulation around the printer space with the help of fans and air tubes.
3.5. Conclusion
Dynamic façade systems or CABS incorporating Shape Memory Materials (SMMs) could be a
promising solution to tackle the issue of increasing building energy demands and deteriorating
environmental quality. The current literature showed that dynamic façade systems even with
just the mechanical systems can save up to 30% of building energy. After studying the general
characteristics of SMP, it seemed as a suitable material for façade applications. However, more
detailed findings need to be done on its material properties such as strength and stiffness to
properly judge its suitability for façade application. Moreover, its ability to be 3D printed also
needs to be investigated since information on it in the literature was found to be insufficient.
Different movement strategies for façade panels were studied in which biomimicry was found to
be an interesting way to approach movement patterns. A combination of shape memory effect of
SMP and biomimetic approach to façade movements could lead to a lesser reliance on
mechanical systems in CABS and to a greater savings in building energy.
18
4. THE INVESTIGATION
The diagram below summarizes the different branches of investigation done during the thesis
project.
Understanding the shape

memory cycle and its
repeatability
Establishing the optimal 3D
printing settings of SMP
Compression Tests Yield Compressive Stress
Material Tests on SMP
Ultimate Tensile Stress

Thesis Project
Tensile Tests Yield Tensile Stress
Flat Hinge - Hinge

Young's Modulus
Mechanism
Designing, building, testing Curved Hinge - Hinge

of three prototypes Mechanism
Flectofin Inspired
Mechanism
Ability to show 100% ARR at

Ttrans
Abitlity to open/close flap

within 10 minuntes
Evalulation of the three
Design Criteria
prototyeps
Ability to withstand external
wind loads
Ability to rotate up to 90°

with 100% ARR
Figure 4.a: Hierarchical summary of the investigations done during the thesis project.
19
5. 3D PRINTING PROCESS AND WORKING PRINTING
SETTINGS FOR SMP
5.1. General 3D printing process
Throughout the thesis project, Autodesk AutoCAD 2018 was used to model any object to be 3D
printed. The models were saved as stereolithography (.stl) files. These model files were then
loaded on Cura15.04 (slicer software) which converts .stl files into G-code files. G-code is a
programming language which is read by a 3D printer to perform given instructions. Therefore,
all crucial 3D printing settings are fed into the slicer software to produce G-codes for successful
3D printing. These settings are different for different input materials used. The input SMP
material used in this project and its printing settings are described in the following sections.
5.2. Input filament details (SMP)

Table 5.2.a. summarises the manufacturer’s specifications of the SMP filament used in this
project.
Table 5.2.a: Specification of the SMP filament used in the project.
Manufacturer Kyoraku Co., Ltd.

Filament Material Name Polyurethane SMP
Filament Diameter 1.75 ± 0.10 mm
Printing Temperature 195 – 210 °C
Characteristic Transition Temperature (Ttrans) 55 °C
Production Lot SK92H24
5.3. Finding working 3D printing settings for SMP

The 3D printer used was Lulzbot TAZ5 3D printer which is shown in Figure 5.3.a. The diameter
of the nozzle used was 0.8mm. Section 3.4 explained the general 3D printing process from the
literature. The procedure adopted to print SMP in this project was as follows:
- Switch the 3D printer on.

- Preheat the extruder to 215°C and the bed to 55°C using the menu on the machine.
- After the extruder is heated to the required temperature, load the SMP filament on the
machine and fit it into the extruder. The filament melts in the hot extruder.
- Extrude a small amount of filament to clean the extruder so that any previous filament does
not remain in it.
20
- Load the model (.stl) file to be printed on Cura 15.04, input the printing settings into the
software and produce G-Code file.
- Load the printer with the G-Code file to begin printing.
Input Filament Wire

Extruder
Heating Bed Cooling Fan
Figure 5.3.a: Illustration of Lulzbot TAZ5 3D printer and its

components.
Since suitable settings for SMP were not found in the

literature, several attempts with different printing settings
were made. Eventually, a 3D cube was successfully printed
using the settings mentioned in Table 5.3.a. The 3D object
Figure 5.3.b: First successful print object
printed is shown in figure 5.3.b. (3D cube).
Table 5.3.a: A working 3D printing settings on Cura 15.04 for the SMP filament used.
Basic Settings Advanced Settings

Extrusion 215 °C Nozzle Size 0.8 mm
Temperature
Printing Speed 20 mm/s Retraction Speed 5 mm/s
Bed Temperature 55 °C Retraction Distance 1 mm
Filament Diameter 1.75 mm Initial Layer 0.4 mm
Thickness
Shell Thickness 1.6 mm Extruder Travel 120 mm/s
Speed
Bottom and Top 0.2 mm Cooling Fan Disabled
Layer Thickness
Flow Rate 100%
These settings were adopted for all the SMP objects printed in this project.
21
6. MATERIAL TESTS
6.1. Compression Tests
6.1.1. CAD drawing and 3D printing
First and foremost, compression test specimens were modelled on AutoCAD and 3D printed.
ASTM D695 was followed for modelling the dimensions of the compression specimens.
According to the standard, the preferred specimen dimensions for strength tests are shown in
Table 6.1.1.a (ASTM International, 2015).
Table 6.1.1.a: Modelled dimensions of the compression test specimens according to ASTM D695 (ASTM International, 2015).
Shape Cylinder
Diameter 12.7 mm
Height 25.4 mm
Five of these specimens were successfully 3D printed using SMP filament after a couple of
unsuccessful attempts. Figure 6.1.1.a. shows photographs of an unsuccessful and a successful
3D prints of the modelled compression specimens.
raft
Figure 6.1.1.a: Photographs of unsuccessful (left) and successful (right) 3D prints of the modelled compression
cylinder.
The unsuccessful 3D prints were due to the extruder opening not gripping the fed filament wire
properly. After tightening of the opening where filament wire is fed, better quality cylinders
were printed. The rafts on the bottom of the cylinders and small imperfections were removed
using pliers to make them smooth uniform cylinders. The purpose of a raft in 3D printing is to
ensure the object being printed sticks to the printing bed as it covers a greater area.
Table 6.1.1.b below shows the measured dimensions of the 5 printed cylinders. Using a digital
caliper, 6 diameter values were taken (2 at the top, 2 at the center and 2 at the bottom) for each
cylinder and averaged. The heights were measured with the caliper as well.
22
Table 6.1.1.b: Measured dimensions of the 5 cylinders against the modelled dimension.
Specimen # CAD 1 2 3 4 5
model
Diameter (mm) 12.7 12.6 12.9 12.5 13.0 12.4
Height (mm) 25.4 27.6 27.2 27.3 27.3 27.4
The difference in the height was due to the raft being added to the model during the printing
stage. When the rafts were removed after printing, only the protruded portions were removed
with pliers leaving the core portion stuck to the entire object.
The diameters of the printed cylinders were not consistent. These variations could be due to
poor printing quality of the printer especially when it prints roundish objects. High layer height
setting could also worsen the print quality. This imprecision could have been lessened by
reducing the layer height settings. It would increase the duration of the print job, however.
6.1.2. Compression Test Method

The compression test apparatuses included compression test specimens, an MTS Criterion
machine with compression plates, a bathroom heat lamp that can reach temperatures of around
120 °C, a temperature probe and a computer. The test set-up is illustrated in Figure 6.1.2.a
below.
MTS
Criterion
Machine
Heat Temperature
Lamp Probe
Compression Test
Specimen
Temperature
Probe Meter
Figure 6.1.2.a: Photograph of the compression test set-up.
Procedure:
23
- The heat lamp was placed inside the MTS test box behind the compression plates.
- The specimen was placed on the compression plate and the top plate was adjusted so that
it just touched the top of the specimen.
- The heat lamp was switched on and the temperature of the specimen was measured using
the probe.
- The distance between the lamp and the specimen was adjusted until the required
temperature was reached and stabilised. This temperature was recorded as the initial
temperature.
- The compression test was started and the load exerted against crosshead displacements
values were recorded on a computer.
- The test was stopped at a random point after a period of yielding.
- At the end of the test, the final temperature of the specimen was taken.
6.1.3. Compression Test Results

The load values obtained from the test were converted to stress using the formula:
𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 =
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟
The crosshead displacement values were converted to strain using the formula:
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
The tests were performed at 5 different temperatures. The test speed for all the tests was kept at
5 mm/min except for test #1 which was kept at 1 mm/min.
Test #1
Stress Vs Strain (Avg. Temp. = 25°C) Table 6.1.3.a: Key results for test #1.
70 Average 25 °C
60 Temperature
50
Stress (MPa)
40 Temperature ± 1 °𝐶
30 Variation Range
20
10
Yield Compressive ~ 40.7 MPa
0 Stress
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain Strain at Yield ~ 0.07
Figure 6.1.3.a: Stress-strain graph for test #1.
24
Figure 6.1.3.a shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.1.3.a shows the key results for Test #1.
Since the final temperature was not read in this test, the initial temperature was taken as the
average temperature and a temperature variation range of ± 1°𝐶 is assumed in this test.
Test #2
Table 6.1.3.b: Key results for test #2.

Stress Vs Strain (Avg. Temp. = 31°C)
70 Average 31 °C
60
Temperature
50
Stress (MPa)
40
Temperature ± 1.5 °𝐶
30 Variation Range
20
Yield Compressive ~ 36.5 MPa
10
0 Stress
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Strain
Strain at Yield ~ 0.06
Figure 6.1.3.b: Stress-strain graph for test #2.
Figure 6.1.3.b shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.1.3.b shows the key results for Test #1.
Since the initial and final temperatures were read in this test, an average value was taken and the
temperature variation range was calculated using the following formula:
𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 − 𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = ±
2
Test #3
Table 6.1.3.c: Key results for test #3.
50
Average 39 °C
40
Temperature
Stress (Mpa)
30 Temperature ± 1.0 °𝐶
20 Variation Range
10 Yield Compressive ~ 34.0 MPa
0
Stress
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Strain at Yield ~ 0.06
Strain
Figure 6.1.3.c: Stress-strain graph for test #3.
Figure 6.1.3.c shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.1.3.c shows the key results for Test #3.
temperature variation range was calculated.
25
Test #4
Table 6.1.3.d: Key results for test #4.

Stress Vs Strain (Avg. Temp. = 47 °C)
18
16 Average 47 °C
14 Temperature
Stres (MPa)
12
10 Temperature ± 4.0 °𝐶
8
6
Variation Range
2
0 Stress
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain
Figure 6.1.3.d: Stress-strain graph for test #4.
Figure 6.1.3.d shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.1.3.d shows the key results for Test #4.
temperature variation range was calculated.
Test #5
Table 6.1.3.e: Key results for test #5.

6
Average 56 °C
5
Temperature
Stress (MPa)
3
Temperature ± 4.0 °𝐶
2 Variation Range
0 Stress
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Strain
Figure 6.1.3.e: Stress-strain graph for test #4.
Figure 6.1.3.e shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.1.3.e shows the key results for Test #5.
temperature variation range was calculated. Since there was no well-defined yield point on the
stress-strain graph, the yield compressive stress was taken as the stress value when strain was
0.06. This stress value was 0.3 MPa.
26
6.1.4. Compression Test Discussions
Yield compressive stress against temperature of SMP
Yield Compressive Stress Vs Average SMP

Yield Compressive Stress (MPa) 45
Temperature
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 Ttrans
5
0
20 30 40 50 60
Average SMP Temperature (degree C)
Figure 6.1.4.a: Variation of yield compressive stress with increasing temperature.
Figure 6.1.4.a shows the variation of yield compressive stress of SMP with increasing
temperature. Generally, a decreasing trend is seen with a sharp drop in compressive stress
observed from 34 MPa at 39°C to 7.7 MPa at 42°C. The horizontal error bars represent the
temperature variation range. It should be noted that the yield compressive stress became very
small around the Ttrans of SMP which was 0.3 MPa at 56 °C. This indicates that SMP becomes
comparatively easy to be permanently deformed under compressive stress around its Ttrans.
Other discussions on observations and procedure
For all the cases, the specimens got shortened and the cross-sections got enlarged during the
latter parts of the tests which caused the stress-strain graphs to rise after a period of plateauing.
The calculation of engineering stress does not take into account this increasing area. This means
that the engineering stress was overstated in the graph when compared to the actual stress
during the period of increasing cross-section.
For Tests #2 to #4, the strain value at yield was found to be 0.06 whereas for test #1, it was
found out to be 0.07. Since test #5 did not have a defined yield point, compressive stress value
was taken as the stress when the strain was 0.06. This strain value was chosen based on previous
test (#1 to #4) results.
For test #1, the temperature variation range was assumed as ±1 °C. This value was assumed
because heat lamp was not used in the test and the test was carried out at room temperature.
27
6.2. Tensile Tests
6.2.1. CAD Drawing and 3D Printing
The tensile test specimens were modelled on AutoCAD and 3D printed. The dimensions of the
modelled tensile coupon are shown in Table 6.2.1.a. An illustration of the model is shown in
Figure 6.2.1.a.
Table 6.2.1.a: Modelled dimensions of the tensile test specimens.
Thickness 3 mm
Total Length 200 mm
End Length 50 mm
End Width 20 mm
Straight Middle Length 80 mm
Straight Middle Width 12.5 mm
Arc Radii of the Curves 15.2mm Figure 6.2.1.a: Illustration of the tensile coupon
model.
Five of these specimens were successfully 3D printed

using SMP filament. One additional tensile coupon
was printed with different dimensions. Figure 6.1.1.a.
shows a photograph of a 3D printed tensile coupon.
No printing problems were encountered during the 3D
printing of the tensile coupons.
Table 6.2.1.b below shows the measured dimensions Figure 6.2.1.a: Photograph of a 3D printed tensile
coupon.
of the 6 tensile coupons. Both the thickness and the
width were measured using a digital caliper. Specimen 1 was printed from a different model.
That is why its dimensions are way off compared to the rest.
Table 6.2.1.b: Measured dimensions of the 6 tensile coupons against the modelled dimensions.
Specimen # CAD 1* 2 3 4 5 6
model (Different
Model)
Thickness 3 3.9 2.5 3 2.7 2.8 2.8
(mm)
Straight 12.5 10.5 13.1 13.1 13.0 13.1 13.1
middle width
(mm)
28
No rafts were added to the model this time since the area touching the printing bed was big
enough for the object to keep it stable while printing. Therefore, the printed thickness values
were less than or equal to the modelled thickness. The printed widths were precise but
inaccurate to 0.6 mm. Again, this could be due to printing inaccuracy of the 3D printer used.
6.2.2. Tensile Test Method

The tensile test
apparatuses
included tensile
test specimens, an Extensometer
MTS Criterion
machine with
tensile grips, an Tensile coupon
extensometer, a
bathroom heat
Tensile Grips
lamp, a
temperature probe
and a computer. Figure 6.2.2.a: Photograph of a tensile test set-up.
The test set-up for a test carried out at room temperature is illustrated in Figure 6.2.2.a.
Procedure (with heat-lamp):
- The heat lamp was placed inside the MTS test box behind the tensile grips.
- The end portions of the specimen were fitted into the tensile grips at top and the bottom.
It was ensured that the coupon was vertically upright between the grips.
- The extensometer was fitted to the middle portion of the specimen (if needed).
- The heat lamp was switched on and the temperature of the specimen was measured using
the temperature probe.
- The distance between the lamp and the specimen was adjusted until the required
temperature was reached and stabilised. This temperature was recorded as the initial
temperature.
- The tensile test was started and the load exerted against extensometer extension and
crosshead displacements values were recorded on a computer.
- After the specimen broke, the final temperature of the specimen was taken and the
pieces were removed from the grips.
29
6.2.3. Tensile Test Results
The load values obtained from the test were converted to stress using the formula:
𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 =
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑑 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
The extensometer displacement and/or crosshead displacement values were converted to strain
using the formula:
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 = (𝑜𝑟)
𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠
𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
The tests were performed at 6 different temperatures. The test speed for all the tests was kept at
10 mm/min. The gauge length of the extensometer was 25 mm. The Youngs’ modulus values
were calculated by finding the slope of the initial linear portion of the respective stress-strain
graphs.
Test #1
Stess vs Strain (Avg. Temp. = 20°C)

60
50
Stress (MPa)
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain
Figure 6.2.3.a: Stress-strain graph for test #1 carried out at room temperature.
Table 6.2.3.a: Key results for test #1.
Average Temperature Yield Ultimate Young’s Strain Strain at

Temperature Variation Tensile Tensile Modulus at Failure
Range Stress Stress Yield
20 °C ±1.0 °𝐶 ~50.4 MPa NA 1934 MPa ~0.03 NA
Figure 6.2.3.a shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.2.3.a shows the key results for Test #1.
30
average temperature and a temperature variation range of ± 1°𝐶 is assumed in this test. Only the
extensometer values were used for the displacement measurements.
Test #2
Stress Vs Strain (Avg. Temp. = 30.5 °C)

40
35
30
Stress (MPa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Strain
Figure 6.2.3.b: Stress-strain graph for test #2.
Table 6.2.3.b: Key results for test #2.

30.5 °C ±2.5 °𝐶 ~34.1 MPa NA 1789 MPa ~0.03 NA
Figure 6.2.3.b shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.2.3.b shows the key results for Test #2.
average temperature and a temperature variation range of ± 2.5°𝐶 is assumed in this test. Only
the extensometer values were used for the displacement measurements.
Test #3
Stress Vs. Strain (Avg. Temp. = 38.5°C)

35
30
Stress (MPa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Strain
Figure 6.2.3.c: Stress-strain graph for test #3.
31
Table 6.2.3.c: Key results for test #3.

38.5 °C ±1.5 °𝐶 ~3.7 MPa 31.6 MPa 232.6 MPa ~0.02 2.15
Figure 6.2.3.c shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.2.3.c shows the key results for Test #4.
temperature variation range was calculated. Only the crosshead values were used for the
displacement values for this test.
Test #4
50
40
Stress (MPa)
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Strain
Figure 6.2.3.d: Stress-strain graph for test #4.
Table 6.2.3.d: Key results for test #4.

46.5 °C ±3.5 °𝐶 ~2.6 MPa 41.5 MPa 57.5 MPa ~0.03 3.43
Figure 6.2.3.d shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.2.3.d shows the key results for Test #4.
Test #5
32
25
20
Stress (MPa)
15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Strain
Figure 6.2.3.e: Stress-strain graph for test #5.
Table 6.2.3.e: Key results for test #5.

53.5 °C ±6.5 °𝐶 ~1.5 MPa 26.5 MPa 62.5 MPa ~0.02 2.01
Figure 6.2.3.e shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.2.3.e shows the key results for Test #5.
Test #6
14
Stress Vs Strain (Avg. Temp. = 73 °C)
12
10
Stress (MPa)
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Strain
Figure 6.2.3.f: Stress-strain graph for test #6.
33
Table 6.2.3.f: Key results for test #6.

73 °C ±2.5 °𝐶 ~0.7 MPa 13.1 MPa 4.5 MPa ~0.02 1.38
Figure 6.2.3.f shows the stress-strain graph and Table 6.2.3.f shows the key results for Test #6.
average temperature and a temperature variation range of ± 2.5°𝐶 is assumed in this test. Only
the crosshead values were used for the displacement values for this test. Since there was no
well-defined yield point on the stress-strain graph, the yield tensile stress was taken as the stress
value when the train was 0.02. This stress value was 0.7 MPa.
6.2.4. Tensile Test Discussions

Variation of SMP tensile strength with temperature
SMP Tensile Strength Vs Average SMP Temperature
50.0
Yield Tensile Stress
Tensile Strength (MPa)
40.0 Ultimate Tensile Stress
30.0
20.0
10.0 Ttrans
0.0
15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0 65.0 75.0
Average SMP Temperature (degree C)
Figure 6.2.4.a: Variation of SMP tensile strength with temperature
In Figure 6.2.4.a, both the yield tensile stress and ultimate tensile stress show a decreasing trend
with increasing temperature. A huge drop was seen in yield tensile stress from 34.1 MPa at 30.5
°C to 3.7 MPa at 38.5 °C. At the Ttras, the yield tensile stress was around 1.5 MPa which is
similar to the stress at 38.5°C. This shows that SMP becomes comparatively easy to be
permanently deformed under tensile stress around 38.5°C.
The decrease in ultimate tensile stress was steadier. It was around 26.5 MPa at the Ttrans which is
much higher than the yield stress (~1.5 MPa) at the same temperature.
34
Variation of SMP stiffness with temperature
SMP Stiffness Vs Average SMP Temperature

2000.0
Young's Modulus (MPa) Ttrans

1500.0
1000.0
500.0
0.0
15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0 65.0 75.0
Average SMP Temperature (Degree C)
Figure 6.2.4.b: Variation of SMP stiffness with temperature.
Figure 6.2.4.b shows a decreasing trend of SMP stiffness with temperature. A huge drop was
observed from 1789 MPa at 30.5°C to 233 MPa at 38.5°C. Similar to observation with yield
tensile stress, it can be seen that SMP becomes comparatively easy to be deformed around
38.5°C. This is even before Ttrans is reached.
Variation of SMP strain at failure with temperature
Strain at Failure Vs Average SMP Temperature

3.5
3
Strain at Failure
2.5
1.5
Ttrans
1
35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0
Average SMP Temperature (Degree C)
Figure 6.2.4.c: Variation of SMP strain at failure with temperature.
Figure 6.2.4.c shows a decreasing trend of SMP failure strain with temperature. Its pattern is
similar to the pattern of ultimate tensile stress against temperature graph as both show their
peaks at 46.5 °C. The peak failure strain value was 343% at 46.5 °C whereas the failure strain at
Ttrans was around 2.01. At 73 °C, the failure strain was 138% which shows that SMP is very
ductile under tensile stress even at temperatures higher than Ttrans. In literature, it was found that
SMP can be deformed up to 800% strain. Similar value was expected if the strain at failure at
room temperature was successfully found.
35
Other discussions on observations and procedure
For tests #3 to #6, extensometer was not used to measure

the displacement because the strain occurred at a portion
of the specimen other than the middle portion where the
(See Figure 6.2.4.e). In this figure, necking occurred on
the bottom part where the heat lamp appeared to focus its
heat and light at. Crosshead displacement was used for
these tests. It should be noted that the cross-section of the
coupon between the grips was not uniform since the
curved portions of the coupon were there. This can be
seen in Figure 6.2.2.a. This entire volume of coupon Figure 6.2.4.e: Necking occurring outside the
extensometer range.
between the grips bore the strain during the test and a
constant cross-sectional area was assumed in the calculated stress value. Therefore, the strength
values obtained in test #3 to #6 are not very accurate.
For the tests where extensometer readings were used

(test #1 and #2), it was assumed that only the portion of
the specimen within the extensometer grip was strained
due to the exerted loads. Moreover, the extensometer
used was limited to measure the strain of up to around
0.24 (See Figure 6.2.4.f). The remaining load-
displacement data points couldn’t be recorded.
Therefore, the exact ultimate tensile stress and strain at
failure values couldn’t be found for tests #1 and #2.
For test #1, the temperature variation range was assumed Figure 6.2.4.f: Extensometer stopped extending
its legs with the coupon and slipped after
as ±1 °C whereas it was assumed as ±2.5 °C for tests #2 reaching its limit.
and #6. For test #1, the value was assumed because heat
lamp was not used in the test and the test was carried out at room temperature. For test #2 and
#6, the value was assumed because the heat lamp was used in these tests and the final
temperature was not recorded by mistake. From experience using the heat lamp, it was found
that it has a fluctuation range of around 5°C.
For tests #3 to #5, where the entire behaviour of the coupons under tensile stress were recorded,
all of them showed a very linear elastic behaviour followed by a brief period of plateauing
36
which was then followed by a long period of increasing stress with strain until failure was
reached. This shows that SMP is very ductile under tensile stress.
6.3. Shape Memory Cycle of SMP

This test was carried out to understand the behaviour of the SMP used and its shape memory
cycle.
6.3.1. Shape Memory Cycle Test Method

The apparatuses used in this test were a tensile coupon, heat lamp, temperature probe, ruler,
digital caliper and digital protractor.
Procedure:
- The tensile coupon was placed on a flat surface and was exposed to heat from the heat
lamp.
- The temperature probe was used to measure the coupon’s temperature as it was heating
up.
- When its temperature reached a temperature
>Ttrans, the peak deformation temperature was
recorded and the coupon was deformed by a
small angle using a ruler as shown in Figure
6.3.1.a.
- The heat lamp was switched off and the coupon
was allowed to cool down until its temperature
reached around 35 °C (<Ttrans). This temperature
was named as fixing temperature (Tfix). The
Figure 6.3.1.a: Photograph showing the coupon
deformation stress was continuously held with being deformed by a ruler
the ruler until Tfix was reached.

- The angle of the bend was measured using the digital protractor.
- The coupon was heated again to a temperature > Ttemp for recovery. The peak recovery
temperature was recorded. It was heated until no more movement was observed.
- The heat lamp was switched off, the coupon was allowed to cool down and the angle of
bend after recovery was measured.
- The thickness of the coupon was measured (measured at the same location every cycle).
6.3.2. Shape Memory Cycle Test results

7 trials were performed and all the key results are presented in Table 6.3.2.a. The initial
thickness of the coupon was measured as 4.6 mm.
37
Table 6.3.2.a: Key Results from the shape memory cycle tests
Trial Deformation Fixing Angle of Angle of Peak Angular After-test

Temp (°C) Temp Deformation Recovery Recovery Recovery thickness of
(°C) (°) (°) Temp Ratio the coupon
(°C) (mm)
1 67 35 38 38 62 1 4
2 70 35 28 28 70 1 4.3
3 70 34 27 27 70 1 4.2
4 68 35 31 31 N/A 1 4.5
5 74 35 30 30 64 1 4.6
6 57 33 29 29 57 1 4.5
7 66 35 28 28 63 1 4.9
The deformation temperature is the temperature at which the SMP coupon was deformed.
Fixing temperature is the temperature when the applied stress is released after the coupon cools
down. Angle of deformation is the angle after deformation minus initial angle. Angle of
recovery is the angle after deformation minus angle after recovery. Peak recovery temperature is
the peak temperature reached (> Ttrans) while recovery heating process. Angular recovery ratio is
calculated as follows:
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
6.3.3. Shape Memory Cycle Test Discussions

Shape memory cycle of SMP explained on a 2D graph
Shape Memory Cycle of SMP

(3) Cool down with
applied stress
New
Shape
Strain
(4) Reheat (2) Deform

[Recovery]
Original (1) Heat

Shape
Tfix (<35°C) Ttrans (55°C)
Temperature
Figure 6.3.3.a: Qualitative illustration of the shape memory cycle of SMP.
38
The graph above, Figure 6.3.3.a, qualitatively illustrates the shape memory cycle of the SMP
using the insights from the tests done.
The behaviour matched with the behaviour of SMP found in the literature which is shown in
Figure 3.2.1.a. Instead of showing the stress axis, the graph is simplified into a 2D graph by
mentioning the stress applications in words.
Other discussions on shape memory cycle tests

Since the angular recovery ratio for all the test was 1, deformations for all the trials recovered
successfully. However, it should be noted that the highest deformed angle was 35° only. The
ratio might have been lower if the deformed angles were much higher. Furthermore, the ratio
might have been different for coupons with different thicknesses and widths.
Figure 6.3.3.b shows another important observation made during the tests. As seen in Figure
6.3.1.a, the coupon was only bent about one axis during the deformation phase. However, after
the recovery, even though it returned to its original angle about that axis, it got slightly bent
about another perpendicular axis. This could have been due to non-uniform stress distribution in
the coupon during the deformation and recovery phases since the heat was more intense on the
bent side of the coupon compared the opposite side.
Before Deformation After Recovery

Figure 6.3.3.b: Comparison of the coupon before deformation and after recovery.
Moreover, the thickness of the coupon kept changing slightly after every cycle. Hence, even
though Figure 6.3.3.a shows that the coupon returned to its original shape after the recovery
phase, it doesn’t entirely return to its original shape. It gets slightly deformed after each cycle
depending on how it was deformed and heated.
39
7. PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND ASSEMBLY
7.1. Flat Hinge - Hinge Mechanism
The Flat Hinge prototype was made of three separate components:
- SMP hinge in flat original shape: acting as sensor and actuator

- ABS flap: acting as a sunshade
- ABS border: to support the façade elements
All three components were modelled on AutoCAD and then 3D printed.
SMP flat hinge dimensions
Table 7.1.a: Dimensions of SMP flat hinge (CAD and 3D Printed).
CAD 3D Printed
Length 200 mm 200 mm
Breadth 100 mm 100 mm
Thickness 3 mm 3 mm Figure 7.1.a: Photograph of the SMP flat hinge.
Table 7.1.a shows the dimensions whereas Figure 7.1.a shows a photograph of the SMP flat
hinge. There was no issue found with the 3D printing of this element and the printed dimensions
were accurate.
ABS flap dimensions
Table 7.1.b: Dimensions of ABS flap (CAD and 3D Printed).
CAD 3D Printed
Length 190 mm 190 mm
Breadth 100 mm 100.3 mm
Thickness 2 mm 2.1 mm Figure 7.1.b: Illustration of the CAD
model of ABS flap.
Figure 7.1.b shows a CAD screenshot of the ABS flap. As seen in Table 7.1.b, the 3D printed
dimensions were only slightly different to the modelled dimensions which are negligible.
ABS border dimensions
40
Table 7.1.c: Modelled dimensions of the ABS border.
Length Height Width Width Groove Groove

along the into the Width Depth
plane plane
231 mm 200 mm 20 mm 30 mm 4.5 mm 5 mm
Figure 7.1.c: CAD model of the

Table 7.1.c presents the CAD dimensions of the border while Figure border.
7.1.c illustrates its shape. Its actual dimensions were not measured. However, since 3D printing
with ABS material was sufficiently accurate, they were assumed to be very close to the
modelled dimensions.
Prototype Assembly
Figure 7.1.d: Assembly process of the Flat Hinge prototype.
Figure 7.1.d illustrates the process of how the Flat Hinge prototype was assembled. Firstly, half
the breadth of SMP plate was cut by 5 mm on each end to prevent it from touching the border
during its operation. It was then slid into the border through the border groove. The plate and
the border were then glued together around the groove-plate interface with an epoxy adhesive
that could be heated up to 80 °C. The ABS plate was then glued to the SMP plate using the
same adhesive over an overlapping region which can be seen in Figure 7.1.d.
7.2. Curved Hinge - Hinge Mechanism

The Curved Hinge prototype was made of three separate components: SMP hinge in curved
original shape, ABS flap and ABS border. They performed the same functions as the
components of Flat Hinge prototype.
All three components were modelled on AutoCAD and then 3D printed.
SMP curved hinge dimensions
41
Table 7.2.a: CAD dimensions of SMP curved hinge.
Thickness 3 mm
Height 200 mm
Inner Arc 50 mm
Radius
Outer Arc 53 mm
Radius
Figure 7.2.a: 3D printed curved SMP hinge.
The curved hinge was modelled as a quarter circle and its dimensions are shown in Table 7.2.a.
Figure 7.1.1.a shows a photograph of the 3D printed SMP curved hinge. There was no major
issue found with the 3D printing of this element and the printed dimensions were assumed to be
close to the CAD drawing.
ABS flap dimensions
The ABS flap printed for this prototype was exactly the same as that for Flat Hinge prototype.
The dimensions and shape are shown in Table 7.1.b and Figure 7.1.b respectively.
ABS border dimensions
Similar to the ABS flap, the ABS border printed for this prototype was exactly the same as that
for Flat Hinge prototype. The dimensions and shape are shown in Table 7.1.c and Figure 7.1.c
respectively.
Prototype Assembly
Figure 7.2.b shows the photograph of the assembled Curved

Hinge prototype. The assembly process was exactly the same as
that of Flat Hinge prototype. Half the arc of the curved hinge
was cut by 5 mm on each end to prevent it from touching the
border during its operation. It was then slid into the border
through the border groove. The hinge and the border were then
glued together around the groove-hinge interface with an epoxy
adhesive that could be heated up to 80 °C. The ABS plate was
then glued to the curved hinge using the same adhesive over an Figure 7.2.b: Photograph of
assembled Curved Hinge prototype.
overlapping region which can be seen in Figure 7.2.b.
42
7.3. Flectofin Inspired Mechanism
The Flectofin prototype was made of two main components:
- SMP backbone: acting as sensor and actuator

- Polyethylene flap: acting as a flexible sunshade flap
This prototype was based on the FLECTOFIN design by Lienhard et al (2011). The relevant
literature can be referred to under section 3.3.2. The backbone was modelled on AutoCAD and
3D printed while the flap was just cut from a plastic folder bought from a supermarket.
Backbone Dimensions
Table 7.3.a: Dimensions of SMP flat hinge (CAD and 3D Printed).
CAD 3D Printed
and modified
Length 200 mm 193.5 mm
Width along 15 mm 13.1 mm
the plane
Width into 20 mm 19 mm Figure 7.3.a: CAD model of the backbone.
the plane
Groove width 0.5 mm ~2.3 mm
Groove depth 5 mm ~5.7 mm
The printed dimensions are way off to the modelled dimensions. This was because a different
3D printing settings were used instead of the optimal one. However, this print was continued to
be used further as the backbone of the prototype. The groove was modelled in AutoCAD but it
was too narrow to be visibly seen. Therefore, the groove was cut physically using a hacksaw to
make it reasonably wider and deeper. All the relevant dimensions are shown in Table 7.3.a
while the model shape is shown in Figure 7.3.a.
Flap dimensions
The dimensions of the flap are shown below:
- Length = 153 mm
- Height = 133 mm
- Thickness = 0.3 mm (2 layers combined)
Prototype Assembly
43
The cut flap was glued to the groove of the
backbone using an epoxy adhesive that could be
heated up to 80 °C. The photographs of the
assembled Flectofin prototype is shown in Figure
7.3.b. The raft underneath the backbone was
removed later.
Figure 7.3.b: Photographs of the assembled Flectofin
prototype.
44
8. PROTOTYPE TESTS
8.1. Flat Hinge Prototype
8.1.1. Flat Hinge Test Method
The aim of the test with this prototype was to check the recoverability of the prototype.
Independent Variable: Angle of Deformation (°)
Dependent Variables: Angle of Recovery (°) and Angular Recovery Ratio (%)
The remaining variables were kept constant.
Procedure:
- The heat lamp was switched on and the ambient temperature around it was let to
stabilise. The ambient temperatures were measured at different distances to the heat
lamp and marked on a board underneath.
- After the initial angle of the flap was measured, the
prototype was placed at 72.5°C ambient temperature
location. It was rotated about an imaginary axis on the
SMP plate by a certain magnitude of angle using a
digital protractor (See Figure 8.1.1.a) (Angle of
deformation = Angle of the flap after deformation –
Initial flap angle).
Figure 8.1.1.a: Flat Hinge prototype rotated
- It was then cooled down using a water bath to room about the SMP plate.
temperature keeping the plate bent at the same angle.
- The prototype was then placed in the same ambient temperature location for recovery
heating and timed. Until no more recovery occurred, the timer was stopped, the
prototype was cooled down to room temperature using a water bath and the flap angle
was measured. (Angle of recovery = Angle of the flap after deformation – Angle of the
flap after recovery)
- This was repeated four more times with increasing angle of deformation values.
8.1.2. Flat Hinge Test Results

The deformation ambient temperature and the recovery ambient temperature were kept the same
at 72.5°C with ±2.5 °C assumed variation.
45
The key results are shown in Table 8.1.2.a below. The raw data is shown in Appendix 10.2.1.a.
An illustration of the movement of the prototype under heat is shown in Figure 8.1.2.a.
Figure 8.1.2.a: Illustration of the movement of the Flat Hinge prototype under heat.
Table 8.1.2.a: Key results of the Flat Hinge Prototype Test.
Test No. Angle of Heating time Angle of Angle Recovery

Deformation for recovery(s) recovery Ratio (%)
(degrees) (degrees)
1 20 ~8 mins 20 100
2 36 ~9 mins 39 108
3 60 ~9 mins 60 100
4 80 ~9 mins 81 101
5 95 ~9 mins 95 100
8.1.3. Flat Hinge Prototype Test Discussion

From Table 8.1.2.a, it can be seen that up to a deformation angle of 95°, the ARR was 100%.
This means that the flap would return to its original position even if the hinge was bent up to
95°. For this amount of deformation, the opening area ratio of the panel was calculated to be
~52%. The data for the opening area ratio can be found in Appendix 10.2.1.b.
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟
The ARR for tests 2 and 4 went beyond 100%. This could be due to
gravity causing deformation when the prototype was removed from the
heat after recovery heating.
Even though the ARR were found to be 100%, it didn’t entirely return
to its original position. Some permanent deformations occurred to the
SMP hinge leaving it non-uniform (See Figure 8.1.3.a).
Figure 8.1.3.a: Non-uniform
SMP hinge after recovery.
46
Lastly, the time it took for the recovery to take place was around 8 to 9 minutes for all the
deformation angles (from 20° to 95°) tested. This shows that the recovery time period does not
depend on the angle of deformation/recovery. It might depend on the recovery temperature
however which were investigated in other tests.
8.2. Curved Hinge Prototype

8.2.1. Curved Hinge Test Method
Two different types of tests were done with this prototype.
(i) Recovery temperature against recovery time and ARR
The aim of this test was to observe the effect on recovery time and ARR with changing recovery
temperature.
Major independent variable: recovery temperature
Dependent variable: recovery time and ARR
The test procedure was similar to that of Flat Hinge prototype in section 8.1.1. The angle of
deformation values for different trials were kept between 35° and 70° to ensure a fair
comparison. Ideally, it should have been kept constant.
(ii) Angle of deformation against ARR
The aim of this test was to obtain the maximum angle of deformation with 100% ARR.
The test procedure was very similar to that of Flat Hinge prototype in section 8.1.1. The
recovery temperatures were kept between 77°C and 92°C for the trials in this test.
8.2.2. Curved Hinge Test Results

The key results from this test are presented in Figure 8.2.2.a. The raw data is shown in
Appendix 10.2.2.
47
Angular Recovery Ratio (%)
Effects of Ambient Temperature on Recovery Time and ARR (Curved
Hinge Protoype)
150%
100%
ARR 50%
Ttrans
Recovery Time (min)
25 0%
20 25 35 45 55 65 75
15
10 Recovery Time
5
0
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Recovery Temperature (°C)
Figure 8.2.2.a: Graph of recovery temperature against recovery time and ARR (Curved Hinge Prototype).
Table 8.2.2.a: Key results for the maximum deformation angle with 100% ARR test.
SMP Recovery Heating Recovery ARR

deformation Temp time for Angle (°)
angle (degree recovery(s)
(degrees) C)
127.4 77 350 132 104%
166.4 85 427 164.7 99%
174.6 85 465 163.4 94%
213.7 91.7 664 190.8 89%
The raw data for this test is shown in Appendix 10.2.2. Table 8.2.2.a shows the key results for
the test.
8.2.3. Curved Hinge Test Discussions

Figure 8.2.2.a shows that 100% ARR was only achieved when the recovery temperature was
greater than or equal to Ttrans. Generally, it showed an increasing trend for ARR with increasing
recovery temperature. ARR greater than 100% for a couple of tests could have been due to
external forces such as gravity causing deformation when the prototype was just removed from
recovery heating.
48
The graph also showed a decreasing trend for recovery time with increasing recovery
temperature. This means it takes a shorter time for the prototype to recover at higher recovery
temperatures. At Ttrans, the prototype was calculated to take 6.6 mins to recover a deformation
angle in the range of 35°-70°.
Table 8.2.2.a shows that the maximum angle of deformation with ~100% ARR was 166°.
In one of the trials, the curved hinge was bent by a high deformation angle of 214° and it was
recovered at an ambient temperature of 92° C. The temperature of the prototype elements must
have been higher than 92°C as it was kept under the heat for more than 6 minutes. This caused
burning of glue (observed through smoke) and damage the prototype components which can be
seen in Figure 8.2.3.a.
Deformed ABS
Deformed SMP hinge flap due to
due to excessive excessive heating.
deformation.
Figure 8.2.3.a: Damaged caused to the prototype due to very high recovery temperatures.
8.3. Flectofin Prototype

8.3.1. Flectofin Prototype Test Methodble
Two different types of tests were done with this prototype as well.
Similar to section 8.2.1.(i), the aim of this test was to observe the effect on recovery time and
ARR with changing recovery temperature.
Major independent variable: recovery temperature
Dependent variable: recovery time and ARR
49
The test procedure was similar to that of Flat Hinge prototype in section 8.1.1. The angle of
deformation (flap rotation) values for different trials were kept between 51° and 63° to ensure a
fair comparison. Ideally, it should have been kept constant.
(ii) Flap rotation against backbone mid-span deflection
The aim of this test was to observe how much mid-span deflection of the backbone was needed
for different rotation angles of the flap. The test procedure was similar to that of Flat Hinge
prototype in section 8.1.1. However, only two variables were recorded:
Independent variable: rotation of the polyethylene flap (angle of deformation)
Dependent variable: mid-span deflection of the backbone.
The deformation and recovery temperatures were around 70 °C. Other variables were not
important to be recorded.
Photographs showing deformations on the two components (backbone and flap) of the prototype
is illustrated in Figure 8.3.1.a.
Figure 8.3.1.a: Deformations seen on two different components of the Flectofin prototype.
8.3.2. Flectofin Prototype Test Results

The key results from this test are presented in Figure 8.3.2.a. The raw data is shown in
Appendix 10.2.3.
50
Effects of Ambient Temperature on Recovery Time and ARR (Flectofin
Prototype)
150%
ARR
100%
ARR
50%
Ttrans
Recovery Time (min)
25 0%
20 25 35 45 55 65 75
15
10 Recovery Time
5
0
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Figure 8.3.2.a: Graph of recovery temperature against recovery time and ARR (Flectofin Prototype).
Figure 8.3.2.b shows the results for the test. The raw data is shown in Appendix 10.2.3.
Flap angle against backbone mid-span deflection

10
Backbone Mid-span Deflection (mm)
2
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Flap Angle (°)
Figure 8.3.2.b: Graph of flap angle against backbone mid-span deflection.
8.3.3. Flectofin Prototype Test Discussions

Figure 8.3.2.a shows a general increasing trend for ARR of Flectofin prototype with increasing
recovery temperature. However, 100% was not reached at any temperature. The maximum ARR
was 87% at 70°C recovery temperature. This could be due to the SMP backbone being too
51
thick/deep (13.1 mm) about its bending axis to exhibit its special elastic properties. More tests
should have been performed on this prototype for the cause to be clearly identified.
Generally, similar to the Curved Hinge prototype, a decreasing trend in recovery time was
observed with increasing recovery temperature. However, to recover flap rotation between 51°-
63° even at 70°C recovery temperature, it took 10.5 minutes.
At Ttrans, the ARR and recovery time were calculated to be around 67.5% and 13 minutes
respectively.
Figure 8.3.2.b showed a reasonably linear relationship between flap rotation and mid-span
deflection of the backbone. For a 63° flap rotation, the mid-span deflection of backbone was 9
mm whereas, for a 28° flap rotation, the mid-span deflection was 2.8 mm. It would have been
interesting to see how the relationship would change for different backbone depths and flap
thicknesses.
52
9. PROTOTYPE DESIGN EVALUATION
9.1. Design Criteria
Table 9.1.a shows four different design criteria and their reasonings for the prototypes tested.
Table 9.1.a: Tabulation of design criteria and their reasoning for the prototypes tested.
No. Design Requirements Target Reasoning for Target Value Selection

Value
A The prototype must be able to 100% ARR The prototype should be able to perform full
show 100% ARR at Ttrans at 55 °C recovery cycle at the Ttrans of SMP (55°C). So,
that Ttrans could be used as the benchmark
temperature for optimal performance.
B The prototype must be able to <10 mins A duration less than 10 mins was assumed as
open/close within a certain with 100% a reasonable time limit for the indoor
time showing full recovery ARR at temperature not to be greatly disrupted by the
cycle Ttrans external conditions.
C The prototype must be stiff 2 kPa For a 30-storey building in Sydney, 2 kPa
and strong enough to was assumed as a severe wind pressure based
withstand external loads such on experience calculating wind loads using
as wind AS1170.2.
D The prototype must be able to 90° It was assumed that façade panels need to
deflect up to 90° elastically rotate up to 90° with 100% ARR to allow
maximum opening area. This was based on
simple hinge designs.
9.2. Design Evaluation

9.2.1. Ability to show 100% ARR at Ttrans
The effect of recovery temperature on ARR

140%
Curved Hinge
120%
100% ARR
100%
80%
Flectofin
60%
40%
Ttrans
20%
0%
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 9.2.1.a: Checking for 100% ARR at Ttrans.
53
Figure 9.2.1.a shows that Curved Hinge showed 100% ARR at a temperature around Ttrans
whereas Flectofin did not. There was no relevant data for Flat Hinge and therefore, it was
ignored in this evaluation.
9.2.2. Ability to open/close within 10 mins with 100% ARR.
Effects of Ambient Temperature on Recovery Time and Angular

Recovery Ratio
Angular Recovery
150%
Ratio (%)
Curved Hinge
100%
100%
ARR
Recovery Time (min)
Flectofin
50%
25 0%
20 25 35 45 55 65 75
15 Flectofin
Req’t:
10 10 mins
5 Curved Hinge
0
25 35 45 55 65 75
Figure 9.2.2.a: Checking for recovery within 10 mins with 100% ARR.
Figure 9.2.2.a shows that Curved Hinge could recover within 10 mins with 100% ARR at
temperatures around Ttrans whereas Flectofin could not even at temperatures around 70°C. There
was no relevant data for Flat Hinge and therefore, it was ignored.
Angular Speed of SMP Recovery Vs Ambient Temperature

0.5
Angular Speed (degree/s)
0.4
0.3
0.2 Curved Plate
0.1 Flectofin
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ambient Temperature (degree C)
Figure 9.2.2.b: Comparison of recovery rates at different recovery temperatures.

Figure 9.2.2.b supports the fact that Curved Hinge could open/close at a higher rate (or) within a
lesser time than Flectofin.
9.2.3. Ability to exhibit strength to withstand external wind pressure

Table 9.2.3.a is extracted from section 6 – Material Tests. It shows the strength and stiffness of
SMP at its Ttrans.
54
Table 9.2.3.a: Strength and stiffness of SMP at Ttrans.
Yield Tensile Ultimate Yield Compressive Young’s Required

Stress (kPa) Tensile Stress Stress (kPa) Modulus (kPa) Strength
(kPa) (kPa)
~1 500 ~26 500 ~300 ~62 500 2
Since all the strength and stiff parameters of SMP at its Ttrans were higher than the requirement,
it shows that prototypes certainly had the structural integrity to withstand such wind loads.
Material properties of ABS are not compared because they are not very important and stronger
materials could have been used for flaps and frames in place of ABS and/or polyethylene.
9.2.4. Ability to rotate up to 90° with 100%
Effect of Deformation Angle on Angular Recovery Ratio

120%
Flat Hinge
110%
Curved Hinge
100%
100% ARR
90%
Flectofin
80%
Req't:
70% 90°
60%
0 50 100 150 200
Deformation Angle (°)
Figure 9.2.4.a: Checking for rotation up to 90° with 100%.
Figure 9.2.4.a showed that Flat Hinge and Curved Hinge could achieve 100% ARR for rotation
angle great than or equal 90° whereas Flectofin did not. Flectofin could only show 100% ARR
for a rotation between 31° and 37°.
9.2.5. Design Evaluation Outcomes

Table 9.2.5.a: Design Evaluation Outcomes
A B C D
Curved Hinge ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Flat Hinge N/A N/A ✓ ✓
Flectofin   ✓ 
55
Table 9.2.5.a shows that Curved Hinged passed all the design criteria whereas Flectofin did not.
Flat Hinge passed all the criteria except two of them where it was not tested for. This shows that
using SMP with Hinge Mechanism could be a potential solution for adaptive façade
applications. Variations to the biomimetic Flectofin prototype could be made to achieve better
results against the design criteria.
Other discussions
One issue that may arise with the selection of design criteria is the absence of ‘the ability to
perform at normal room temperatures’ criteria from list. This is because the SMP used in this
project was not suitable to be used at room temperatures. Therefore, the Ttrans of SMP was used
as the benchmark. However, as found in the literature, the molecular architecture of SMP can be
easily modified to reduce its Ttrans from 55°C to room temperature. Alternatively, a photovoltaic
converter could be used together with an SMP with any Ttrans value. The converter would
convert solar radiation into electric current and the current would then be used to heat the SMP
to its Ttrans when required.
56
10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
All the important investigations done in this thesis project has been described in detail. The
shape memory cycle test showed that the behaviour of SMP matched to the one found in the
literature. The working 3D printing settings of the SMP were successfully found in this project
which were not there in the literature.
Moreover, the material properties of SMP such as yield tensile stress, yield compressive stress,
ultimate tensile stress and Young’s modulus at different temperatures were successfully
investigated as well. The stress and stiffness parameters showed a decreasing trend with
increasing temperature which was expected. However, significant drops in these parameter
values were observed at temperatures just below Ttrans of SMP. Furthermore, SMP was also
found to be a very ductile material as discovered in the literature.
Three different prototypes were built using ABS, SMP, CAD drawing and 3D printing. These
prototypes were based on two movement mechanisms – hinge mechanism and biomimetic
Flectofin mechanism. The results of the tests performed on these three prototypes were judged
against four design criteria. The hinge-mechanism-based prototypes passed all the tested design
criteria whereas the biomimetic-mechanism-based prototype did not. However, variations in the
design of the Flectofin prototype could be done to make the biomimetic approach work.
In terms of future work, durability tests on SMP should be performed to judge its long-term
usefulness in façade applications. Durability tests could not be performed in this thesis project
due to the time constraints as each cycle of SMP lasts around 20-30 mins. It was found in the
literature that these materials are durable up to 200 cycles. To prove that or to discover
something new about durability, a lot of time needs to be committed. This could be solved if the
test cycles could be automated.
In addition, if budget is not a constraint, real-scale prototypes of façade panels with SMP should
be built and assembled in a model house. Similar tests like the ones done in this thesis project
should be carried out and the energy efficiency of the house should be monitored. A
photovoltaic meter should be accompanied to make it work at room temperatures. In this way,
the feasibility of SMP in façade applications could be more accurately evaluated.
57
11. References
Behl, M. & Lendlein, A., 2007. Shape Memory Polymers. Materials Today, 10(4), pp. 20 - 28.
Decker, M. & Yeadon, P., 2010. Projects Smart Screen: Versions I, II and III. s.l.:s.n.
Edenhofer, O. et al., 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elzeyadi, I., 2017. The impacts of dynamic façade shading typologies on building energy
performance and occupant’s multi-comfort. Architectural Science Review, 60(4), pp. 316-324.
Fiorito, F. et al., 2016. Shape morphing solar shadings: Areview. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Volume 55, pp. 863-884.
Giang, K., 2018. PLA vs. ABS: What's the difference?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/pla-vs-abs-whats-difference#what-are-
abs-and-pla
[Accessed 11 05 2018].
Jeronimidis, G. & Atkins, A., 1995. Mechanics of biological materials and structures: nature's
lessons for the engineer. Proc Inst Mech Eng,Part C; J Mech Eng Sci 1995, Volume 209, pp.
221-35.
Kolesov, I. S., Kratz, K., Lendlein, A. & Radusch, H.-J., 2009. Kinetics and dynamics of
thermally-induced shape-memory behavior of crosslinked short-chain branched polyethylenes.
Polymer, 50(23), pp. 5490-5498.
Leng, J., Lan, X., Liu, Y. & Du, S., 2011. Shape-memory polymers and their composites:
Stimulus methods and applications. Progress in Material Science, 56(7), pp. 1077-1135.
Lienhard, J. et al., 2011. Flectofin: a hingeless flapping mechanism inspired. Bioinspiration &
Biomimetics, 6(4).
Lignarolo, L., Lelieveld, C. & Teuffel, P., 2011. Shape morphing wind-responsive facade.
London (UK), Adaptive architecture: an inter-national conference.
Loonen, R., Trcka, M., Costola, D. & Hensen, J., 2010. Performance simulation of climate
adaptive building shells - Smart Energy Glass as a case study. In: V. Lemort, P. André & S.
58
Bertagnolio, eds. 8th International Conference on System Simulation in Buildings. Liège:
Proceedings 8th International conference on System Simulation in Buildings, Liège, pp. 1-19.
Otsuka, K. & Wayman, C., 1998. Shape Memory Materials. 1st ed. Cambridge (UK):
Cambridge University Press.
Pe´rez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J. & Pout, C., 2008. A review on buildings energy consumption
information. Energy and Buildings, 40(3), pp. 394-398.
Rousseau, I. A., 2008. Challenges of shape memory polymers: A review of the progress toward
overcoming SMP's limitations. Polymer Engineering and Science, 48(11), pp. 2075-2089.
Sun, L. et al., 2012. Stimulus-responsive shape memory materials: A review. Materials &
Design, Volume 33, pp. 577-640.
Varotsis, A. B., 2018. Introduction to FDM 3D printing. [Online]

Available at: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/introduction-fdm-3d-printing#what
[Accessed 10 05 2018].
Yang, Y., yonghua, C., Ying, W. & Yingtian, L., 2015. 3D printing of shape memory polymer
for functional part fabrication. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Volume 84.
59
12. Appendices
12.1. Equations
(i) Angle of deformation = Angle of flap after deformation – Initial flap angle
(ii) Angle of recovery = Angle of flap after deformation – Angle of flap after recovery
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦
(iii) 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔
(iv) 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟
12.2. Raw Data of Prototype Tests

12.2.1.Flat Hinge Prototype Test Raw Data
Table 12.2.1.a: Flat Hinge Prototype test raw data.
Te Initia Defor Defor Angle Angle Recover Final Heating angle An Angu
st l mation mation after of y Temp Temp time for after gle lar
N angle Temp temp defor Defor Ambient during recovery(s recove of Reco
o. of Ambie SMP mation mation (degree recove ) ry rec very
bend nt (degre (degre C) ry (degre ove Ratio
(SM (degre es) es) heatin e C) ry
P) e C) g (de
(degr gre
ees) es)
1 15 72.5 60 35 20 72.5 87 8 mins 15 20 1.00
2 16 72.5 60 52 36 72.5 88 9 mins 13 39 1.08
3 15 72.5 57 75 60 72.5 88 9 mins 15 60 1.00
4 15 72.5 57 -65 80 72.5 89 9 mins 16 81 1.01
5 16 72.5 56 -79 95 72.5 100 9 mins 16 95 1.00
Table 12.2.1.b: Flat Hinge test opening area ratio raw data (for deformation phase).
Test opening opening opening opening Façade

No. length height area area area
(x) (y) ratio (mm^2)
(mm) (mm) (%)
1 17 188 3,196 9 33,840
2 63 188 11,844 35
3 90 188 16,920 50
4 84 188 15,792 47
5 94 188 17,672 52
60
12.2.2. Flat Hinge Prototype Test Raw Data
Table 12.2.2.a: Raw Data for recovery temp against recovery time and ARR test.
Deformatio Angle Recovery Angle Recover Deforme Recovere Recovere Initia

n after Temperatu after y time d Angle d Angle d Angle l
Temperatu deformati re (°C) recover (until Calculate Calculate Ratio, Angl
re (°C) on (°) y (°) stop) d (°) d (°) Curved e (°)
(min) Plate (%)
70 1.1 27 1.1 10.00 60.90 0.00 0% 62
70 4.2 30 14.9 10.00 34.80 10.70 31%
70 11.9 40 39 7.17 56.60 27.10 48%
70 16.5 50 68.5 7.03 62.80 52.00 83%
70 4.4 60 79.3 6.33 69.90 74.90 107%
70 1.1 70 74.3 4.10 60.90 73.20 120%
Table 12.2.2.b: Raw Data for angle of deformation against ARR test.
Tes Initial Deformati Angle SMP Recove Heating angle Recove Recove
t angle on Temp after deformati ry time for after ry ry ratio
No of bend (degree C) deformati on angle Temp recovery recove Angle
(SMP) on (degrees) (degre (s) ry (°)
(degree (horizonta e C) (degre
s) l as 0) e C)
1 56 68 -71.4 127.4 77 350 60.6 132 104%
2 60.6 72 -105.8 166.4 85 427 58.9 164.7 99%
3 58.9 80 -115.7 174.6 85 465 47.7 163.4 94%
4 47.7 70 -166 213.7 91.7 664 24.8 190.8 89%
12.2.3. Flectofin Prototype Test Raw Data

Table 12.2.3.a: Raw Data for recovery temp against recovery time and ARR test.
Tri Programm Temperat Angle Initial Angle Recove Deform Recover Recover
al ing ure after Angle after ry time ed ed ed
Temperat during deformat Measur recove (until Angle Angle Angle
ure (°C) Recovery ion (°) ed (°) ry (°) stops) Calculat Calculat Ratio,
(°C) (min) ed (°) ed (°) Flectofi
n (%)
1 70 70 61 6 13 10.5 55 48 87%
2 70 60 62 5 23 12 57 39 68%
3 70 50 63 8 26 15.33 55 37 67%
4 70 40 51 10 29 14.67 41 22 54%
5 70 30 58 8 52 16 50 6 12%
6 70 27.5 62 6 62 20 56 0 0%
61
Table 12.2.3.b: Raw data for flap angle vs backbone midspan deflection test.
flap backbone
angle mid-span
(deg) deflection
(mm)
28 2.8
36 3.5
45 5.2
48 6.2
51 7.5
52 7
58 7
61 7.5
62 8.2
62 7.5
63 9
62

3D Printing With Shape Memory Polymers (SMP) For Morphing Facades

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3D Printing With Shape Memory Polymers (SMP) For Morphing Facades

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3D Printing with Shape Memory Polymers (SMP) for

Phyo Paing Soe @ Chandan Kumar

Supervisor: Dr Mike Bambach

Author: Phyo Paing Soe @ Chandan Kumar

Dr Mike Bambach – Thesis Supervisor, The University of Sydney

Wentao Jin and Joseph Shen – Thesis Partners

3. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 9

3.1. Developments in Dynamic Façade Systems ......................................................................... 9

3.2. Shape Memory Materials (SMMs) ...................................................................................... 10

3.2.1. Shape Memory Polymers (SMPs) ................................................................................ 10

3.2.2. Shape Memory Alloys (SMAs).................................................................................... 13

3.2.3. Shape Memory Hybrids ............................................................................................... 13

3.3. Movement Mechanisms ...................................................................................................... 14

3.3.1. Examples of shape morphing façade projects incorporating SMMs ........................... 14

3.3.2. Biomimetics ................................................................................................................. 15

3.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 18

4. THE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 19

5. 3D PRINTING PROCESS AND WORKING PRINTING SETTINGS FOR SMP ................. 20

5.1. General 3D printing process ................................................................................................ 20

5.2. Input filament details (SMP) ............................................................................................... 20

5.3. Finding working 3D printing settings for SMP ................................................................... 20

6. MATERIAL TESTS .................................................................................................................. 22

6.1. Compression Tests .............................................................................................................. 22

6.1.1. CAD drawing and 3D printing ..................................................................................... 22

6.1.2. Compression Test Method ........................................................................................... 23

6.1.3. Compression Test Results ............................................................................................ 24

6.1.4. Compression Test Discussions..................................................................................... 27

6.2.1. CAD Drawing and 3D Printing.................................................................................... 28

6.2.2. Tensile Test Method..................................................................................................... 29

6.2.3. Tensile Test Results ..................................................................................................... 30

6.2.4. Tensile Test Discussions .............................................................................................. 34

6.3. Shape Memory Cycle of SMP ............................................................................................. 37

6.3.1. Shape Memory Cycle Test Method ............................................................................. 37

6.3.2. Shape Memory Cycle Test results ............................................................................... 37

6.2.3. Shape Memory Cycle Test Discussions .......................................................................... 38

7. PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND ASSEMBLY ............................................................................. 40

7.1. Flat Hinge - Hinge Mechanism ........................................................................................... 40

7.2. Curved Hinge - Hinge Mechanism ...................................................................................... 41

7.3. Flectofin Inspired Mechanism ............................................................................................. 43

8. PROTOTYPE TESTS ................................................................................................................ 45

8.1. Flat Hinge Prototype ........................................................................................................... 45

8.1.1. Flat Hinge Test Method ............................................................................................... 45

8.1.2. Flat Hinge Test Results ................................................................................................ 45

8.1.3. Flat Hinge Prototype Test Discussion .......................................................................... 46

8.2. Curved Hinge Prototype ...................................................................................................... 47

8.2.1. Curved Hinge Test Method .......................................................................................... 47

8.2.2. Curved Hinge Test Results .......................................................................................... 47

8.2.3. Curved Hinge Test Discussions ................................................................................... 48

8.3. Flectofin Prototype .............................................................................................................. 49

8.3.1. Flectofin Prototype Test Methodble ............................................................................ 49

8.3.2. Flectofin Prototype Test Results .................................................................................. 50

8.3.3. Flectofin Prototype Test Discussions ........................................................................... 51

9. PROTOTYPE DESIGN EVALUATION .................................................................................. 53

9.1. Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 53

9.2.1. Ability to show 100% ARR at Ttrans ............................................................................. 53

9.2.2. Ability to open/close within 10 mins with 100% ARR. .............................................. 54

9.2.3. Ability to exhibit strength to withstand external wind pressure .................................. 54

9.2.4. Ability to rotate up to 90° with 100% .......................................................................... 55

9.2.5. Design Evaluation Outcomes ....................................................................................... 55

10. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ............................................................................. 57

11. References ............................................................................................................................... 58

12. Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 60