Materials / Compare
FDM HIPS vs. Rubber
Compare FDM HIPS vs. Rubber strength, stiffness, weight and thermal properties.
| Try it on a partA bracket to run stress or thermal on, free in your browser | Open in LessCAD | Open in LessCAD |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | ||
| Yield strength | not given (tensile used) | not given (tensile used) |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 18.4MPasourcetypical | 23MPasourcetypical25% stronger |
| Flexural strength | 31.8MPasourcetypical | not sourced |
| Elongation at break | 1.4%sourcetypical | 830%sourcetypical593x more ductile |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 1.59GPasourcetypical | not sourced |
| Density | 1,023kg/m³sourcetypical | 960kg/m³sourcetypical (specific gravity) |
| Strength to weight | 18kN·m/kg | 24kN·m/kg33% higher |
| Stiffness to weight | 1.55MN·m/kg | not sourced |
| Poisson's ratio | not sourced | 0.5sourcegovernment (NBS J. Res. 68A, 1964): computed by NBS for peroxide-cured gum NR vulcanizate, 25 °C, infinitesimal deformation0.49 in the solver: the linear element locks as the ratio nears 0.5 (nearly incompressible). |
| Shear modulus | not sourced | not sourced |
| Bulk modulus | not sourced | not sourced |
| Speed of sound | 1,246m/s | not sourced |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 0.17W/m·Ksourcebase material: INEOS Styrolution PS 486N injection-molding HIPS, typical | 0.151W/m·Ksourcegovernment selected value (US Army Natick Laboratories TR 66-49-PR, 1966), soft vulcanized natural rubber, 25 °C |
| Thermal expansion | 80µm/m·Ksourcebase material: INEOS Styrolution PS 486N injection-molding HIPS, typical | not sourced |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 400µm growth | not sourced |
| Specific heat | not sourced | 1,881J/kg·Ksourcegovernment (NBS J. Res. 68A, Table 7; values observed for unvulcanized NR by Bekkedahl and Matheson), 25 °C |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | not sourced | 0.0836mm²/s |
| Thermal shock resistance | not sourced | not sourced |
| Glass transition | 99°Csourcetypical | not sourced |
| Max service temperature | 86°CsourceHDT 1.8 MPa | 70°Csourcecontinuous use operating range |
| Values for | BASF Forward AM (BASF 3D Printing Solutions) Ultrafuse HiPS, TDS v2.2 (13.11.2019), printed specimens, XY 'Flat'. Specimen print settings are not stated; recommended processing on the sheet: nozzle 240-260 °C, bed 100-120 °C, 40-80 mm/s. Product is discontinued (Forward AM product page) but the TDS is still served by Forward AM. | Weir Minerals Linatex Premium rubber (95 % natural rubber), typical physical properties, spec sheet WMD0118/202305 |
Every value links to the document that states it. "Not sourced" means no citable source states it (or only a specification minimum); figures computed from it are left out too.
FDM HIPS is 3D printed: its properties depend on build direction and print settings; these are typical values.
Questions
Is FDM HIPS stronger than Rubber?
Rubber is stronger: its tensile strength is 23 MPa against 18.4 MPa for FDM HIPS (25%).
Which is lighter, FDM HIPS or Rubber?
Rubber is lighter: 960 kg/m³ against 1,023 kg/m³ for FDM HIPS.
Which is lighter for the same job, FDM HIPS or Rubber?
For the same stiffness or strength: Rubber is lighter for a strong rod or tie, strong beam, strong panel or plate.
| Part that must be | FDM HIPS | Rubber |
|---|---|---|
| Strong rod or tie | 33% heavier | lighter |
| Strong beam | 24% heavier | lighter |
| Strong panel or plate | 19% heavier | lighter |
For the same stiffness or strength, mass scales with density over stiffness (or strength) raised to a power set by how the part is loaded: 1 for a rod in tension, 1/2 for a beam in bending, 1/3 for a panel (the standard material-selection indices).
Which is more ductile, FDM HIPS or Rubber?
Rubber stretches further before it breaks: 830% elongation at break against 1.4% for FDM HIPS.
Which conducts heat better, FDM HIPS or Rubber?
FDM HIPS conducts heat better: 0.17 W/m·K against 0.151 W/m·K for Rubber.