Acrylated Silicones Suitable

for SLA 3D Printing

Bob Ruckle and Tom Seung-Tong Cheung

Siltech Corp, Toronto, ON

robert@siltech.com, 845–592-4075

tom2@siltech.com, 416-424-4567

x y

Reactive Silicones

x y

x y

x y

x y

x y

x y

Hydroxy

Acrylate

Acrylate

Acrylated Silicone Types

a

x y

Linear, Di-functional

Extender

Pendant, Multi-functional

Cross-Linker

Acrylated Silicones

Name Type Equivalent Weight

Lin 650 Linear Di-functional 650

Lin 1000 Linear Di-functional 1000

Lin 1200 Linear Di-functional 1200

Lin 2500 Linear Di-functional 2500

Pen 300 Multi-Functional 300

Pen 600 Multi-Functional 600

Pen 1000 Multi-Functional 1000

Experimental

• Materials are cured in a TA Instrument AR-G2

Rheometer using:

– 150 mW/cm2 LCD UV lamp at 365nm

– UV lamp turned on at 300 sec. for 600 sec.

– Strain Set at 0.05% with normal force control

• Properties measured with an Instron 1122

according to ASTM D412 using separately cured

dumbbells.

• Dumbbells were 3D printed with a SLA type 3D

printer from Full Spectrum Laser

Pegasus Touch from FSL3D

Formulations

5% 10% 20% 30%

Sartomer CN 991 8.40% 7.96% 7.07% 6.18% Laromer UA-9072 47.08% 44.58% 39.61% 34.64% Laromer LR-8887 34.40% 32.57% 28.94% 25.31% Sartomer SR833S 3.91% 3.70% 3.29% 2.88% Silicone Acrylate 5.00% 10.04% 20.07% 30.10% TPO 1.04% 0.98% 0.87% 0.76% Silmer ACR Di-10 0.17% 0.17% 0.15% 0.13% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

1. Soft Formulation

2. Proprietary In-House Hard Formulation

3. Commercial Resin from Printer Manufacturer

3D Printed Dumbbells

0

1

2

3

4

5

0%

5%

10%

20%

30%

5%

10%

20

%

30%

5%

10%

20%

30%

5%

10%

20%

30%

control Lin 650 Lin 2500 Lin 1000 PEN 600

rating

Flexibility Tackiness

Flexibility and Tack in Soft

Formulation Less Tack

More Flex

Elongation and Strain in Soft

Formulation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0%

5%

10%

20%

30%

5%

10%

20

%

30

%

5%

10%

20%

30%

5%

10%

20%

30%

control Lin 650 Lin 2500 Lin 1000 PEN 600

% kPa

Avg Strain 2 at Abs.Peak

Avg Extension %at peak

More Flex

Stress and Energy in Soft

Formulation

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0%

5%

10%

20%

30%

5%

10%

20%

30%

5%

10%

20%

30%

5%

10%

20%

30%

control Lin 650 Lin 2500 Lin 1000 PEN 600

mJ/mm kPa Max Tensile Stress at Abs.Peak (kPa)

Max Total Energy/Thickness(mJ/mm)

More Strength

Tensile Strength In-House Hard

Formulation

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

PEN 300 PEN 1000 LIN 1200 LIN 1000

kPa

Tensile Str.

More Strength

Elongation and Energy

In-House Hard Formulation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

PEN 300 PEN 1000 LIN 1200 LIN 1000

mJ/m %

% Elongation Total energy

Elongation and Bending of PEN

300 in Commercial Formulation 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.00.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

Control 5% 10% 20% 30% 40%

cm

Extension % at Break Bending distance , cm

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

400000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Control 5% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Hardness Shore D Tensile stress at Break(kPa)

Stress and Hardness of PEN

300 in Commercial Formulation

Stress and Hardness in

Commercial Formulation

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

900

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

Control Pen 1000 Lin 1200 Lin 1000

Shore D kPa Tensile stress at Abs Peak (kPa) Hardness (Shore D)

Elongation and Bending vs. Use

Level: Commercial Formulation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

Control Pen 1000 Lin 1200 Lin 1000

cm %

Extension% at Peak Bending distance (cm)

• Starting to have success adding flexibility

and elongation to commercial formulation

• Hardness is compromised

Summary

• More Formulation

• Minimize Hardness Loss

Future Work