The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08289-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Experimental investigation and prediction model for mechanical

properties of copper‑reinforced polylactic acid composites (Cu‑PLA)
using FDM‑based 3D printing technique
Arvind Kottasamy1,2 · Mahendran Samykano3 · Kumaran Kadirgama2,4   · Mustafizur Rahman3 ·
Muhamad Mat Noor2

Received: 2 July 2021 / Accepted: 25 October 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Processing complex parts with high dimension accuracy and cost-effectiveness can be achievable using the fused deposition
modeling (FDM) technique. It is one of the highly efficient methods in the additive manufacturing process. However, limita-
tion in working temperature is the main drawback associated with the FDM technique, which has caused the applicability
of low melting temperature materials in this technology, such as PLA. Lack of mechanical strength and critical parameters
such as thermal/electrical conductivity in the final printed products through the FDM technique is another deficiency in this
manufacturing process. The problems mentioned above have gained researchers’ attention to explore new composite materials
as filament for FDM technology. In this research work, copper-reinforced polylactic acid (PLA) specimens are printed with
copper composition variation (25 and 80 wt.%) and various infill patterns including rectilinear, grid, concentric, octagram-
spiral, and honeycomb to investigate its mechanical properties. The geometry of test specimens was fabricated according to
ASTM standard using a low-cost FDM printer. The mechanical properties consist of tensile properties, flexural properties, and
compression properties. The highest ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is obtained by applying 25 wt.% copper composition and
concentric infill pattern recording 25.20 MPa. In contrast, the flexural strength revealed the maximum value of 38.53 MPa.
The highest compressive strength is obtained by grid infill pattern with 25.94 MPa for 25 wt.% Cu compositions. Response
surface methodology (RSM) has been executed to evaluate the influencing parameters, and mathematical models to predict
the mechanical properties have been proposed to estimate the properties.

Keywords  Cu-PLA composite · Tensile strength · 3D printing · FDM · Flexural strength · Compressive strength

1 Introduction AM process is achievable through the merging of several

The advantages of cost efficiency and timesaving have
attracted manufacturers to invest in additive manufacturing
(AM) process. Fabrication of three-dimensional model in
* Kumaran Kadirgama
kumaran@ump.edu.my
1 including material extrusion (ME) [3], binder jetting [4],
Green Kingdom Solutions Sdn. Bhd, Taman Salak Selatan,
57100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2 nated object manufacturing (LOM) [7], sheet lamination,
Faculty of Mechanical & Automotive Engineering
Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
3
College of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
26300 Gambang, Pahang, Malaysia
4
Centre for Automotive Engineering, Universiti Malaysia
Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
layers of materials. The model was first created in design
software [1, 2]. The digital models are commonly produced
in computer-aided design (CAD) software. This procedure
facilitates the production of accurate complex geometries as
the final product with the optimization in raw materials com-
pared to traditional fabrication methods by removing raw
material. There are various types of developed AM method,
powder bed fusion (PBF) [5], material jetting [6], lami-
and direct energy deposition (DED) [8]. FDM is a family
of the material-extrusion process in additive manufactur-
ing [9]. In FDM, material in the state of filament is melted
through a moving nozzle followed by deposition of the lay-
ers onto a substrate. Product developed by FDM is consid-
ered to have anisotropic mechanical properties. It is found

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 1  Working mechanism of fused deposition modeling technique
that mechanical anisotropy is biggest for FDM at approxi-
mately 50% compared to other AM processes [10]. The
filament’s mechanical strength will be better than the prod-
uct as its mechanical strength depends significantly on the
adhesion strength between each layer of melted materials.
The mechanical properties of the final printed products are
entirely dependent on printing parameters such as applied
pattern, speed, thickness of layer, melting temperature, and
infill density [11–15]. These parameters require special
attention during printing process to avoid distortion issue in
between layers which in response might reduce the mechani-
cal strength of FDM parts [16]. Figure 1 demonstrates the
working principle of FDM technique.
Layer thickness [17], angle of printing orientation [18,
19], the position of the print-head [20], and orientation of
filament are the main focus of 3D printer manufacturers/
researchers for the sake of consistent advancement in the
printing materials [21, 22]. The most common materials
used for FDM are polymers, specifically polylactic acid
(PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) [23, 24].
Metals and alloys are also used in developing products
in the aerospace and medical sector [25]. In recent years,
researchers have developed composite materials filament
for enhanced mechanical properties. The primary advan-
tages of FDM are enhanced cost-effectiveness, a simplified
Table 1  Pure metals that have SLM/DMLM
been studied in different AM
processes Titanium X X
Nickel X
Copper
Iron
Gold X
Silver X X
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
process of a material change, and efficient procedure of
fabrication [26]. Compared with the other AM processes,
the machine cost of the FDM printers range from $200 to
$10,000. The machine operating is also much easier than
the other processes and the output also high at the particu-
lar range. However, FDM still has limitations in terms of
mechanical strength, shortage of available materials types,
and working temperature. The range of materials used in
AM has continuously expanded. Researchers have focused
on improving materials properties to enable materials pro-
cessed in traditional methods such as casting to be adapted
into AM. Many materials are still processed using conven-
tional methods because the feedstock material could not be
prepared in the state (powder, wire, and liquid) in which
it is compatible with the AM process. AM of metal parts,
raw materials were mostly prepared in the form of powder.
Pure metals have very limited applications except for very
stringent requirements such as pure titanium for their high
strength-to-weight ratio in medical applications and pure
copper for its high thermal and electrical conductivity [27].
Table 1 tabulates the reviewed pure metals and their respec-
tive AM process that has been performed in research field.
Copper has been commonly used in electrical and heating
appliances for its well-known good electrical, thermal con-
ductivity, and corrosion resistance [28]. These mentioned
characteristics are mainly due to the ductility of copper.
The current research trend in improving material behavior
is through the addition of ultrafine grain materials (UFG)
[29, 30]. However, the addition decreases the ductility due
to the shear localization [31]. Few researchers have worked
on the improvement of UFG ductility [31–33] but the root
cause of such phenomenon is still not clearly defined [34].
Copper is well known for its corrosion resistance properties
in a diverse environment and thus have been widely applied
in industrial applications that require corrosion-resistant
material [35–37]. Copper forms an oxide layer known as
the passive film that acts as a barrier from further corro-
sion of base material. This passive film is unlike rust; it
will not corrode the base material [38, 39]. The properties
of the passive film depend on the composition in the film
[40, 41]. Copper has high corrosion resistance to withstand
seawater but still corrode when reacted with a particular
chemical such as hydrogen sulfide. Sulfide causes a cathodic
SLS/DMLS EBM DED BJ MJ
X X X
X
X X
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 2  Pure copper that have been studied in different AM processes

AM Process Authors Findings

EBM [52] Demonstrated, fully dense parts, but columnar oxide was found in printed parts that can reduce thermal and elec-
trical conductivity performance
[51] Developed EBM process parameter (530) with 99.95% density and tensile strength 177 MPa in printed parts
[53] Developed EBM process parameter (3000 mm/s scan speed and 15 mA power) for 99.94% density on printed parts
[54] Successful fabrication of complex open cellular structures for potential application in the heat exchanger system

reaction with copper and accelerates corrosion [42]. The
advantage of natural corrosion resistance of copper has
also been integrated into other materials through alloying.
Many studies have found the addition of copper as an alloy-
ing element improves corrosion resistance and mechanical
properties of materials like carbon steel, high strength low
alloy steel, and iron [43–45]. AM of copper first found to be
a success through SLM process; however, the material was
porous [46–49]. The reason is that pure copper is reflective
and reflects laser causing low absorption of laser [50, 51].
Moreover, copper has high sintering activity caused by its
high electrical conductivity, laser sintering process such as
SLS is not feasible as it may easily cause the excessive cop-
per powder to be sintered as well [50]. Table 2 expresses the
conducted research works in different AM processes with
the use of pure copper.
EBM was more effective since the electron beam is not
affected by reflection and has been demonstrated to print
99.94% pure copper [53] successfully. Other researchers
also successfully demonstrated the EBM of copper compo-
nents with high electrical conductivity [52, 54, 55].
Polylactic acid (PLA) filament is one of the most com-
monly used polymer materials besides ABS [56, 57].
Along with ABS, PLA has exhibited very promising per-
formance to be considered as an efficient material for addi-
tive manufacturing with the advantage of being biomate-
rial and decomposable [58]. PLA is non-toxic [59]. PLA
does not possess health risks like ABS when printing in
badly ventilated spaces [60, 61]. Like ABS, PLA has a low
thermal expansion co-efficiency, diminishing the risk of
solidified layers from occurring cracks during the printing
process [62]. The low melting point of PLA (150–160 ℃)
provides an advantage for off-grid applications due to less
energy demand [63, 64]. The tensile strength of PLA can
range from 15.5 to 72 MPa [65]. PLA printed with open-
source FDM printer conducted in standard conditions
for normal users found to have the strength of 56.6 MPa
[66]. Research also found that 3D-printed PLA has better
mechanical properties than injected molded PLA [67].
Particle reinforcements are most commonly used to
form polymer-matrix composite (PMC) due to their low
cost. Iron and copper powders have been added to ABS
for the FDM process and have increased modulus, thermal
conductivity, and reduced thermal expansion [68, 69]. One
problem faced in FDM of polymers is that polymers have
high thermal expansion and cause distortion in the final
part. Adding copper and iron into ABS has shown a sig-
nificant reduction in thermal expansion of ABS. Progress
in preserving parent material mechanical properties was
discovered in PLA reinforced with iron that demonstrated
little to no decrease in strength and has improved conduc-
tivity properties. However, PLA reinforced with bronze
showed reduced in mechanical properties [70]. The addi-
tion of metallic particles into the polymer matrix generally
showed a reduction in mechanical properties. However, it
is still possible for certain metal fillers and polymer matrix
combinations with suitable composition to retain the parent
material, in this case, polymer, its mechanical properties.
Table 3 summarizes PMC with metal and some alloy addi-
tives. Generally, pure metals are not common to be used as
additives for PMC. Most research studied on alloy-related
PMC. As shown in Table 3, PMC using metals was dis-
covered as early as 2004 but showed no promising result.
Until recent years, new PMC for 3D printing using metal
particles as additives showed improvement in mechanical
and physical properties.

Table 3  PMC materials with metal additives for 3D printing

Matrix Fillers Authors Findings

ABS Fe [68, 69] Reduced in tensile strength but increased thermal conductivity with an increasing weight percentage
of Fe particles
SS [71] Mechanical properties similar to ABS until 15 wt.%. Beyond 15 wt.% mechanical properties reduced
PLA Fe [70] Similar strength to pure PLA
Bronze Reduce in tensile and flexural strength compared to pure PLA
Nylon Fe [72] Reduced tensile strength compared to Nylon

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 4  Specifications of copper-reinforced PLA filament from man- Table 5  Specification of WANHAO Duplicator i3 desktop 3D printer
ufacturer
Item/properties Specifications
Copper fill Copper metal filled
Body material Powder-coated steel
Manufacturer ColorFabb Gizmo dorks Extruder MK10 single-extruder
Copper particle composition Approx. 80% Approx. 25% Print technology FDM
wt.%
Build volume 200 × 200 × 180 mm
Diameter 1.75 mm 1.75 mm
Printing speed 30–60 mm/min
Extrusion temperature 190–225 ℃ 195–220 ℃
Extruder temp 180–240 ℃
Bed temperature 50–60 ℃ 60 ℃
Heating plate temp 40–70 ℃
AC input 2A/110 V; 1A/220 V,
50–60 Hz, 250 W
Limitation in the working temperature associated with
Net weight 10 kg
the FDM technique allows the use of materials with low
Overall dimension 40 × 41 × 40 cm
melting temperatures such as PLA and ABS. However, lack
Firmware Marlin
of mechanical strength and key factors such as thermal/
electrical conductivity is considered the main drawbacks
to these thermoplastic materials. The problems mentioned filaments. The selected 3D printer can achieve up to 240 ℃.
above have attracted researchers’ attention to boost the FDM Next is the consideration of bed temperature. Bed tempera-
technique principle by developing new composite filaments. ture is optional but having bed temperature can ensure bet-
There is still a lack of critical literature in terms of mechani- ter printing quality. The selected 3D printer can provide
cal properties related to these composite filaments incorpo- a heated bed at the recommended range for the filaments.
rating different filler metals composition. Hence, to the best Finally, the nozzle of the 3D printer must be exchangeable.
of the authors’ knowledge, this research work, for the first Printing composite filaments are abrasive to the nozzle and
time, investigates the printed Cu-PLA composite in terms of require nozzle replacement. The selected 3D printer uses
mechanical properties with a particular focus on the varia- an MK10 nozzle, which is widely available in the market.
tion of weight composition and infill pattern. Critical print- Table  5 demonstrates the in-depth details related to the
ing parameters, such as various infill patterns and copper adopted 3D printer in this research work.
particles’ composition concerning mechanical performance, The selected low-cost 3D printer is calibrated manu-
are investigated comprehensively. ally. Calibration is a critical factor in ensuring accurate
synchronization between the g-code command and noz-
zle position. A feeler gauge is used for hotbed alignment
2 Materials and methods to ensure the accessibility of consistent distance between
nozzle and hotbed, which allows for an efficient deposi-
2.1 Materials tion process.

The selected material for this research work is copper-reinforced 2.3 Printing process of the specimen
PLA polymer. Copper is well known for its high corrosion resist-
ance, good thermal, and electrical conductivity [73]. However, The test specimen is designed using SOLIDWORKS 2017
the reflectivity of copper has caused porosity using the laser- edition software. The test specimen’s required dimension
based process [50, 51]. Hence, FDM could be a good alterna-
tive for printing copper powders in the polymer matrix as its
Table 6  Constant parameters during the printing process
reflectivity does not affect the printing process. The selected
copper particles reinforced PLA filaments are Copper Fill from Parameters Constants
ColorFabb and Copper Metal Filled from Gizmo Dorks. The
Initial layer height 0.3 mm
details of the filaments are shown in Table 4.
Layer height 0.3 mm
Horizontal shell: solid layer Top: 1 layer, bottom: 1 layer
2.2 Specifications of the adopted 3D printer
Outer perimeter 2
Nozzle diameter 0.4 mm
The selection of a 3D printer is made considering its ability
Filament diameter 1.75 mm (± 0.05 mm)
to print the selected composite filaments and parameters to
Extruder temperature 210 °C (± 2 °C)
be studied. The selected 3D printer is WANHAO Duplica-
Printing speed 30 mm/s
tor i3 Desktop 3D Printer. The primary factor is the ability
Print bed temperature 60 °C (± 2 °C)
of the 3D printer to achieve the melting temperature of the

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

is based on ASTM standards with respect to the desired

mechanical test. The generated CAD model is converted
into an STL file. In this research work, g-codes are gener-
ated through Repetier-host software. Raster angle and infill
density are the required parameters to be set in the Repetier-
host software. Afterward, the generated g-codes are trans-
ferred to the 3D printer to set the machine parameters
accordingly. All necessary ambient conditions, including
room temperature and humidity, are controlled precisely Fig. 2  Type 1 specimen geometry based on ASTM D638 standard.
Source: (ASTM D638-14, 2014)
while the 3D printing is under process. Some parameters are
set constant during the printing process to ensure consist-
ency. Table 6 represents the considered constant parameters
in this research work. 3 Characterization techniques
The first layer height was set to 0.3 mm since it is the
medium range that the applied nozzle can extrude. Also, 3.1 Tensile test
the maximum layer thickness of a printed section is rec-
ommended not to exceed 80% of the nozzle diameter. The The INSTRON 3367 machine was adopted for the tensile
default printing speed is set at 30 mm/s as the slowest test evaluation. The maximum load which can be applied
printing speed provides better quality printing process. to this machine is 50 kN. The applied testing speed is set
The first layer speed is set to 15 mm/s and solid fill of the to be 5 mm/min based on ASTM D638, which is fixed for
top and bottom fill speed is set as 60 mm/s. The extruder type 1 specimen geometry. The specimen geometry and
and print bed temperatures were set constant at 210 °C the type 1 specimen’s dimension are shown in Fig. 2 and
and 60 °C, respectively. Manufacturers recommend these Table 8.
temperatures to ensure the full melting of filaments and
adhesion. 3.2 Compression test

2.4 Parameters and required number of specimens The application of opposing forces (applied loadings)
to the material from opposite sides through a universal
In the present study, the considered possible influential test machine is considered as compression test. Critical
parameters on the 3D-printed specimens’ mechanical prop- parameters such as compressive strength, yield strength,
erties are infill pattern and composition of metal fillers. ultimate strength, elastic limit, and the elastic modulus
Table 7 summarizes the studied infill patterns and type/ are possible factors to be determined through compres-
number of test specimens with additional details. sion analysis. Compression test allows study on the appli-
cation of material subjected to suitable compressive load.
The standard used for a compression test is ASTM D695,
Table 7  Parameters and required number of specimens where the speed of testing is 1.3 ± 0.03 mm/min, and the
Parameters Type and number of test specimens
dimension of the specimen is a cylinder with 12.7 mm in
Infill Pattern SPECIMEN STANDARD diameter and 25.4 mm in length. The test was done using
Tensile test - (ASTM D638) INSTRON 3367 machine.
Concentric Honeycomb Compression test – (ASTM D695)
Bending test – (ASTM D790)

Number of specimens need to be

printed
Infill Pattern, Metal Composition.
Rectilinear Octagram-spiral Table 8  Dimensions of the type Dimensions Values (mm)
5 choices, 2 choices. 1 specimen geometry according
to ASTM D638 standard Wc 13
(Concentric, rectilinear, honeycomb,
Octagram-spiral, grid), (25,80) wt. %. L 57
Wo 19
Grid Hence, using permutations the total
number of specimens with a different Lo 165
combination of selected parameters G 50
are 10 samples. A sample size of each
combination is n = 5. Hence, the total D 115
number of specimens printed for each R 76
Metal Filler Composition mechanical test is 50 specimens.
(25 wt. %, 80wt. %)
T 3

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 3  Stress vs strain curve of a

single specimen with concentric Maximum peak = Ultimate Tensile Strength
infill pattern and 80 wt.% Cu
compositions

Stress (MPa)
0.2% offset of slope crossing point
= Yield Strength 0.2% Offset

Slope of straight line = Elastic Modulus

Strain (mm/mm)

3.3 Bending test The Young’s modulus, which is a form of elastic modulus,

The required force to bend a specimen under three-point load-
ing conditions can be considered a valid definition of the bend-
ing test. This test enables selecting suitable materials for criti-
cal parts required to support loads without bending. Material
stiffness, while flexing occurs, can be realized through flexural
modulus. Bending test is usually carried out at elevated tem-
peratures depending on materials functionality and application.
This test was completed using an INSTRON 3367 machine.
The flexural properties of reinforced/unreinforced plastics are
determined based on ASTM D790 standards. The method is
basically applicable to both rigid/semi-rigid materials. The
dimension of the test specimen is based on ASTM D790 [74].
determines the ability of a material that undergoes stress
and deforms to return to its original shape after the stress
has been removed. Ultimate tensile strength (UTS), com-
monly known as tensile strength, is the maximum stress
that a material can withstand while being elongated before
breaking apart. The yield strength is the amount of stress
that the material can be withstood before plastic deforma-
tion begins to occur. These tensile properties were calcu-
lated from the acquired experimental data consisting of the
load and elongation detected. The obtained data were used
to formulate the stress–strain curve used to identify the
three above-mentioned tensile properties. Figure 3 shows
a stress–strain curve from a sample. The averaged tensile
properties obtained can be seen in Table 9.

4 Results and discussion 4.1.1 Young’s modulus

4.1 Comprehensive characterization of elastic
modulus, ultimate tensile strength, and yield
strength
Tensile test in this research work analyses elastic modulus,
ultimate tensile strength, and yield strength (0.2% offset).
Referring to Table  9 and Fig.  4, the highest young’s
modulus is obtained by the 80  wt.% copper composi-
tion specimens with concentric infill pattern recording of
0.3293 GPa. In contrast, the same pattern with 25 wt.%
copper compositions recorded 0.2713 GPa. The pattern
octagram-spiral has the weakest young’s modulus with

Table 9  Experimental results of Infill Pattern Young’s modulus (GPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Yield strength (MPa)
average tensile properties with
respect to various infill patterns 25 wt.% 80 wt.% 25 wt.% 80 wt.% 25 wt.% 80 wt.%
and copper composition
Octagram-spiral 0.1482 0.1489 11.1333 3.6508 5.8418 2.3727
Rectilinear 0.1589 0.1641 13.5543 4.1617 8.1360 3.2437
Honeycomb 0.2202 0.2519 15.9607 4.6607 9.0088 3.5825
Grid 0.2221 0.2599 19.2843 5.9263 9.6168 3.7077
Concentric 0.2713 0.3293 25.1973 7.5033 12.8066 5.4382

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 4  Bar chart of Young’s 0.4

modulus against infill pattern 0.329
0.35

0.260 0.271
0.3 0.252

Young's Modulus (GPa)

0.220 0.222
0.25
0.164
0.2 0.159 25 wt%
0.148 0.149
80 wt%
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Octasgram-spiral Rectilinear Honeycomb Grid Concentric

approximately 0.1482  GPa for both Cu compositions.
From Fig. 4, it is realized that the highest young’s modulus
is reported as a function of concentric infill pattern, while
octagram-spiral recorded the lowest value. The Young’s
modulus of 80 wt.% copper composition is higher than
25  wt.% copper compositions regardless of infill pat-
tern. This phenomenon might be due to the lower tensile
strength and higher copper composition elasticity [75].
The higher young’s modulus between 25 and 80  wt.%
copper compositions seen is due to the specimen's stiffer
behavior due to the higher metal particles’ content.
4.1.2 Ultimate tensile strength
Referring to Table 9 and Fig. 5, the highest ultimate tensile
strength (UTS) is obtained by the 25 wt.% copper compo-
sition specimens with concentric infill pattern recording
25.20 MPa. In contrast, the 80 wt.% copper compositions
achieved only 7.50 MPa. The weakest UTS was observed
in octagram-spiral recorded 11.13 MPa for 25 wt.% copper
composition and 3.65 MPa for 80 wt.% copper composi-
tions. The copper composition exhibited a prominent effect
on UTS over the infill pattern. The difference between the
strongest and the weakest pattern recorded a difference of
55.83% and 51.33% for 25 and 80 wt.% copper composi-
tions, respectively. The significant difference in UTS can
also be observed between 25 and 80 wt.% copper composi-
tions, and it can be deduced that higher metal fillers content
reduces the tensile strength of the material [76].
4.1.3 Yield strength (0.2% offset)
According to Table 9 and Fig. 6, the highest yield strength
(0.2% offset) is obtained by the 25 wt.% copper composition

Fig. 5  Experimental results of
ultimate tensile strength with
respect to various infill patterns

13

Fig. 6  Experimental results of
yield strength (0.2% offset) with
respect to various infill patterns
specimens with concentric infill pattern recording 12.81 MPa
while the 80 wt.% copper compositions achieved 5.44 MPa.
The weakest yield strength was observed in octagram-spiral
recorded 5.84  MPa for 25  wt.% copper composition and
2.37 MPa for 80 wt.% copper compositions. Copper compo-
sition exhibited higher efficiency than infill pattern in terms
of improvement in the yield strength. The difference between
the strongest and the weakest pattern recorded a difference of
54.41% and 56.43% for 25 and 80 wt.% copper compositions,
respectively. The significant difference in yield strength can
also be observed between 25 and 80 wt.% copper composi-
tions. It can be deduced that higher metal fillers content allows
plastic deformation to occur at lower tensile stress condition.
This phenomenon might be due to the formation of strong
Fig. 7  Pareto chart of young’s
modulus
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
interfacial bonding between the PLA and Cu composition as
reinforcement and homogenous distribution of Cu at lower
percentages [77].
4.1.4 Response surface methodology analysis on tensile
test results
The significance of each mechanical property’s printing
parameter is evaluated statistically, and a model is pro-
posed to predict the tensile properties. Figure 7 shows
the Pareto effects of young’s modulus with respective
experiment parameters. The illustration shows that the
infill pattern has the most significant impact on young’s
modulus.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 10  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value

young’s modulus
Model 4 94.38% 32,272.8 8068.2 21.01 0.003
 Linear 2 90.99% 31,111.5 15,555.8 40.50 0.001
Infill pattern 1 85.79% 29,334.3 29,334.3 76.38 0.000
Cu wt.% 1 5.20% 1777.2 1777.2 4.63 0.084
 Square 1 0.22% 76.5 76.5 0.20 0.674
Infill pattern*infill pattern 1 0.22% 76.5 76.5 0.20 0.674
 2-way interaction 1 3.17% 1084.8 1084.8 2.82 0.154
Infill pattern*Cu wt.% 1 3.17% 1084.8 1084.8 2.82 0.154
Error 5 5.62% 1920.3 384.1
Total 9 100.00%
Standard deviation (S) = 19.5972
R2 = 94.38%
R2-adjusted = 89.89%
R2-predicted = 84.77%

The infill pattern’s significance toward young’s modu- Young’s modulus (GPa) = 0.1309 + 0.0143 ∗ infill pattern
lus is confirmed through statistical evaluation shown in + 0.00165 ∗ infill pattern ∗ infill pattern
Table 10. With confidence level is set to 95% (α = 0.05), + 0.000268 ∗ infill pattern
the infill pattern has a P value of 0.003, which is lower than (1)
0.05, confirming infill pattern has a significant effect on
The average percentage error of the model as compared to
young’s modulus. Meanwhile, the Cu composition effect,
experimental values is 5.69%. The model can be deduced that
second-order infill pattern effect, and interaction effect of
it can predict young’s modulus with satisfactory accuracy.
infill pattern with Cu composition have P values higher
Figure 8 shows the Pareto effects of UTS with respective
than 0.05, showing no significant impact toward young’s
experiment parameters. The illustration shows that the infill
modulus.
pattern has the most significant impact on UTS, followed by
According to Table 10, the P value of the model is 0.003,
Cu composition and interaction between infill pattern with Cu
showing that the model created for young’s modulus is sta-
composition.
tistically significant. The model is shown in Eq. 1.

Fig. 8  Pareto chart of UTS

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 11  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value

UTS
Model 4 97.66% 443.143 110.786 52.13 0.000
  Linear 2 91.34% 414.465 207.232 97.52 0.000
    Infill pattern 1 18.81% 85.337 85.337 40.16 0.001
    Cu wt.% 1 72.53% 329.128 329.128 154.88 0.000
  Square 1 0.79% 3.582 3.582 1.69 0.251
    Infill pattern*infill pattern 1 0.79% 3.582 3.582 1.69 0.251
  2-way interaction 1 5.53% 25.095 25.095 11.81 0.019
    Infill pattern*Cu wt.% 1 5.53% 25.095 25.095 11.81 0.019
Error 5 2.34% 10.625 2.125
Total 9 100.00%
Standard deviation (S) = 1.4577
R2 = 97.66%
R2-adjusted = 95.79%
R2-predicted = 84.95%

The significance of infill pattern, Cu composition,
and interaction between infill pattern with Cu com-
position toward UTS is confirmed through statistical
evaluation shown in Table  11. With confidence level
is set to 95% (α = 0.05), the infill pattern, Cu compo-
sition, and interaction between infill pattern with Cu
composition have P values of 0.001, 0.000, and 0.019,
respectively, which are lower than 0.05 confirming these
three parameters has a significant effect toward UTS.
Meanwhile, the second-order infill pattern effect has a
P value higher than 0.05, showing no significant impact
on the UTS.
According to Table 11, the P value of the model is 0.000,
showing that the model created for UTS is statistically sig-
nificant. The model is shown in Eq. 2.
UTS (MPa) = 11.73 + 2.06 ∗ infill pattern
+ 0.358 ∗ infill pattern ∗ infill pattern (2)
− 0.0407 ∗ infill pattern
The average percentage error of the model as compared
to experimental values is 3.93%. The model can be deduced
that it can predict UTS with satisfactory accuracy.
Figure 9 shows the Pareto effects of yield strength with
respective experiment parameters. The illustration shows

Fig. 9  Pareto chart of yield

strength

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 12  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value

yield strength
Model 4 97.95% 101.679 25.4197 59.61 0.000
  Linear 2 93.89% 97.465 48.7326 114.27 0.000
    Infill pattern 1 23.32% 24.212 24.2120 56.77 0.001
    Cu wt.% 1 70.56% 73.253 73.2531 171.77 0.000
  Square 1 0.32% 0.328 0.3282 0.77 0.420
    Infill pattern*infill pattern 1 0.32% 0.328 0.3282 0.77 0.420
  2-way interaction 1 3.74% 3.885 3.8855 9.11 0.029
    Infill pattern*Cu wt.% 1 3.74% 3.885 3.8855 9.11 0.029
Error 5 2.05% 2.132 0.4265
Total 9 100.00%
Standard deviation (S) = 0.653038
R2 = 97.95%
R2-adjusted = 96.30%
R2-predicted = 90.22%

that the infill pattern has the most significant impact on
yield strength, followed by Cu composition and interaction
between infill pattern with Cu composition.
The significance of infill pattern, Cu composition,
and interaction between infill pattern with Cu composi-
tion toward yield strength is confirmed through statistical
evaluation shown in Table 12. With confidence level is
set to 95% (α = 0.05), the infill pattern, Cu composition,
and interaction between infill pattern with Cu composi-
tion have P values of 0.001, 0.000, and 0.029, respec-
tively, which are lower than 0.05 confirming these three
parameters has a significant effect toward yield strength.
Meanwhile, the second-order infill pattern effect has a P
value higher than 0.05, showing no significant impact on
Yield strength.
According to Table 12, the P value of the model is 0.000,
showing that the model created for Yield strength is statisti-
cally significant. The model is shown in Eq. 3.
Yield strength (MPa) = 6.48 + 1.292 ∗ infill pattern −
+ 0.108 ∗ infill pattern ∗ infill pattern
− 0.01603 ∗ infill pattern
(3)
The average percentage error of the model as compared
to experimental values is 6.98%. The model can be deduced
that it can predict Yield strength with satisfactory accuracy.
For Young’s modulus, only infill pattern shows sig-
nificant effect, whereas for UTS and yield strength, infill
pattern, Cu wt.%, and interaction between infill pattern

Fig. 10  Stress–strain sample
80 wt.% Cu with respect to
concentric infill pattern

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 13  Experimental results of average tensile properties with the determination method of ultimate tensile strength and
respect to various infill patterns and copper composition young’s modulus in tensile properties. Figure 10 illustrates
Infill pattern Compressive strength Compressive modulus an example of a sample specimen with the representation of
(MPa) (GPa) compression properties on the stress–strain curve. Table 13
25 wt. % 80 wt. % 25 wt. % 80 wt. % tabulated the average compressive strength and compressive
modulus of 25 wt.% and 80 wt.% Cu with respective infill
Rectilinear 13.7143 9.56153 0.2305 0.2802 pattern.
Honeycomb 17.4588 14.1494 0.2628 0.3604
Octagram-spiral 19.1156 16.0538 0.3306 0.4516 4.2.1 Compressive strength
Concentric 20.7230 16.3650 0.3476 0.4789
Grid 25.9355 19.2709 0.3538 0.5553 According to Table 13 and Fig. 11, the highest compressive
strength is obtained by the grid infill pattern with 25.94 MPa
and 19.27 MPa for 25 and 80 wt.% Cu, respectively. The
with Cu wt.% show a considerable influence. The model infill pattern Rectilinear is observed to have the weakest
created for young’s modulus, UTS, and yield strength compressive strength for both 25 and 80 wt.% Cu record-
has an error of just 5.69%, 3.93%, and 6.93%. The maxi- ing 13.71 MPa and 9.56 MPa, respectively. Copper com-
mum young’s modulus obtained through optimization is position exhibited superior efficiency in terms of compres-
0.3253 GPa with parameters combination of concentric sive strength compared to infill pattern. This phenomenon
infill pattern with 80 wt.% Cu. Meanwhile, 23.7325 MPa might be due to the formation of strong interfacial bonding
and 12.3788 MPa for UTS and yield strength respectively between the PLA and Cu composition.
by parameters concentric infill pattern with 25 wt.% Cu.
4.2.2 Compressive modulus
4.2 Compressive strength and compressive
modulus analysis Referring to Table 13 and Fig. 12, the highest compressive
modulus is obtained by grid infill pattern with 0.3538 GPa
The compression test evaluates the properties of compres- and 0.5553 GPa for 25 and 80 wt.% copper compositions,
sive strength and the compressive modulus. Compres- respectively. Rectilinear infill pattern is observed to have the
sive strength determines the maximum stress that can be weakest compressive modulus for both 25 and 80 wt.% cop-
withstood by the specimen before fracturing. Compressive per compositions, recording 0.2305 GPa and 0.2802 GPa,
strength is determined by the division of maximum load respectively. From Fig. 12, it can be observed that the com-
achieved by the specimen with the specimen's initial cross- pressive modulus enhances in accordance with the following
sectional area. The compressive modulus is also known as sequence of patterns; Rectilinear, Honeycomb, Octagram-
young’s modulus of compression and is similar to young’s spiral, Concentric, and Grid for both 25 and 80 wt.% copper
modulus of tensile test. The determination of compres- compositions. The compressive strength of 80 wt.% Cu is
sion strength and compression modulus is identical with generally higher than 25 wt.% Cu regardless of infill pattern.

Fig. 11  Experimental results
of compressive strength with
respect to various infill patterns

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Fig. 12  Experimental results
of compressive modulus with
respect to various infill patterns
The higher compressive modulus in 80 wt.% of Cu speci-
mens is due to increased Cu particles composition, increas-
ing the specimens’ stiffness.
4.2.3 Surface response methodology analysis
on compression test results
Figure 13 shows the Pareto effects of compressive strength
with respective experiment parameters. The illustration
shows that the infill pattern has the most significant impact
on compressive strength, followed by Cu composition.
The significance of infill pattern and Cu composition
toward compressive strength is confirmed through statistical
evaluation shown in Table 14. With confidence level is set to
Fig. 13  Pareto chart of com-
pressive strength
95% (α = 0.05), the infill pattern and Cu composition have P
values of 0.000 and 0.003, respectively, which are lower than
0.05 confirming these two parameters significantly affect
the compressive strength. Meanwhile, the second-order infill
pattern and interaction between infill pattern with Cu com-
position have P value higher than 0.05, showing no signifi-
cant effect toward compressive strength.
According to Table 14, the P value of the model is 0.002,
showing that the model created for compressive strength is
statistically significant. The model is shown in Eq. 4.
Compressive strength (MPa) = 11.69 + 3.49 ∗ infill pattern
− 0.074 ∗ infill pattern ∗ infill pattern
− 0.0110 ∗ infill pattern
(4)
13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 14  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value

compressive strength
Model 4 95.30% 170.149 42.537 25.33 0.002
  Linear 2 94.18% 168.152 84.076 50.06 0.000
    Infill pattern 1 68.18% 121.726 121.726 72.47 0.000
    Cu wt.% 1 26.00% 46.426 46.426 27.64 0.003
  Square 1 0.09% 0.153 0.153 0.09 0.775
    Infill pattern*infill pattern 1 0.09% 0.153 0.153 0.09 0.775
  2-way interaction 1 1.03% 1.844 1.844 1.10 0.343
    Infill pattern*Cu wt.% 1 1.03% 1.844 1.844 1.10 0.343
Error 5 4.70% 8.398 1.680
Total 9 100.00%
Standard deviation (S) = 1.29601
R2 = 95.30%
R2-adjusted = 91.53%
R2-predicted = 71.90%

The average percentage error of the model as compared
to experimental values is 4.85%. The model can be deduced
that it can predict compressive strength with satisfactory
accuracy. Figure 14 shows the Pareto effects of compres-
sive modulus with respective experiment parameters. The
illustration shows that the infill pattern has the most sig-
nificant impact on compressive modulus, followed by Cu
composition and interaction between infill pattern with Cu
composition.
The significance of infill pattern, Cu composition, and
interaction between infill pattern with Cu composition
toward compressive modulus is confirmed through statistical
evaluation shown in Table 15. With confidence level is set
to 95% (α = 0.05), the infill pattern, Cu composition, and
interaction between infill pattern with Cu composition have
P values of 0.000, 0.000, and 0.004, respectively, which
are lower than 0.05 confirming these two parameters has a
significant effect toward compressive modulus. Meanwhile,
the second-order infill pattern effect has a P value higher
than 0.05, showing no significant impact on compressive
modulus.
According to Table 15, the P value of the model is 0.000,
showing that the model created for compressive modulus is
statistically significant. The model is shown in Eq. 5.

Fig. 14  Pareto chart of com-

pressive modulus

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 15  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value

compressive modulus
Model 4 98.80% 92,944 23,236.0 103.16 0.000
  Linear 2 91.60% 86,173 43,086.5 191.29 0.000
    Infill pattern 1 53.18% 50,029 50,028.8 222.11 0.000
    Cu wt.% 1 38.42% 36,144 36,144.2 160.47 0.000
  Square 1 1.15% 1086 1086.1 4.82 0.080
    Infill pattern*infill pattern 1 1.15% 1086 1086.1 4.82 0.080
  2-Way interaction 1 6.04% 5685 5685.0 25.24 0.004
    Infill pattern*Cu wt.% 1 6.04% 5685 5685.0 25.24 0.004
Error 5 1.20% 1126 225.2
Total 9 100.00%
Standard deviation (S) = 15.0081
R2 = 98.80%
R2-adjusted = 97.85%
R2-predicted = 95.61%

Compressive modulus (GPa) = 0.1533 + 0.0552 ∗ infill pattern ability to withstand stress in a perpendicular direction to
− 0.00623 ∗ infill pattern ∗ infill pattern its longitudinal is considered flexural strength. While flex-
+ 0.000613 ∗ infill pattern ural modulus indicates the stiffness at the early stage of the
(5) bending process. The gradient of the initial layer line of the
The average percentage error of the model as compared stress–strain curve indicates flexural modulus determination,
to experimental values is 2.43%. The model can be deduced which is in accordance with the similar trend in determin-
that it can predict compressive modulus with satisfactory ing Young’s modulus in the tensile test. All flexural proper-
accuracy. For compressive strength, infill pattern and Cu ties are calculated using generated raw data through the test
wt.% show a significant effect, whereas for compressive machine. The average flexural properties are represented in
modulus, infill pattern, Cu wt.%, and interaction between Table 16. Figure 15 shows an example of the stress–strain
infill pattern with Cu wt.% show a significant effect. The curve from one sample specimen to better visualize the flex-
compressive strength and compressive modulus model has ural properties.
an error of just 4.85% and 2.43%, respectively. The maxi-
mum compressive strength obtained through optimization 4.3.1 Flexural strength analysis
is 24.7850 MPa with a grid infill pattern with 25 wt.% Cu,
meanwhile 0.5465 GPa for compressive modulus respec- According to Table  16 and Fig.  16, the highest flexural
tively by parameters grid infill pattern with 80 wt.% Cu. strength is obtained by the 25  wt.% copper composi-
tion specimens with concentric infill pattern recording
4.3 Experimental characterization of flexural 38.53 MPa while the 80 wt.% copper achieved 17.47 MPa.
strength and flexural modulus The weakest flexural strength was observed in octagram-
spiral recorded 26.21 MPa for 25 wt.% Cu and 11.42 MPa
Flexural strength/modulus are possible output parameters for 80 wt.% Cu. The effectiveness of copper composition in
through comprehensive flexural test analysis. A material’s relation to flexural strength is prominently higher than the
infill pattern. The difference between the strongest and the
weakest pattern recorded a difference of 31.98% and 34.63%
Table 16  Experimental results of average flexural properties with for 25 and 80 wt.% copper compositions, respectively. It
respect to various infill patterns and copper composition
can be concluded that the significant difference in terms of
Infill pattern Flexural strength Flexural modulus flexural strength in relation to the copper composition might
(MPa) (GPa) be due to the effect of metal fillers on the flexural strength.
25 wt. % 80 wt. % 25 wt. % 80 wt. %
4.3.2 Flexural modulus analysis
Octagram-spiral 26.2050 11.4200 0.5642 0.7023
Rectilinear 29.6350 12.4933 0.5972 0.7490
In accordance with Table 16 and Fig. 17, the highest flexural
Honeycomb 32.4500 14.6800 0.6577 0.8412
modulus is obtained by the 80 wt.% copper composition
Grid 33.7167 14.9300 0.6638 0.8689
specimens with a concentric infill pattern recording at a rate
Concentric 38.5300 17.4667 0.7119 0.9218
of 0.9218 GPa, whereas for the same pattern of 25 wt.%

13

Fig. 15  Stress–strain curve of a
sample specimen with respect
to octagram-spiral infill pattern
and 25 wt. % copper composi-
tions
copper composition recorded 0.7119 GPa. The weakest flex-
ural modulus is noted in the octagram-spiral infill pattern
with 0.5642 GPa and a 0.7023 GPa for 25 and 80 wt.% cop-
per compositions. Higher wt.% of Cu composition exhibited
a higher value of flexural modulus. The flexural modulus
between the strongest and weakest pattern shows a difference
of 20.75% and 23.81% for 25 and 80 wt.% copper composi-
tions. The significant difference in terms of flexural modulus
in relation to the copper composition might be due to the
higher content of metallic particles, enabling the fabricated
specimen to exhibit stiffer behavior and consequently bend
resistant performance.
4.3.3 Response surface methodology analysis on flexural
test results
Figure 18 shows the Pareto effects of flexural strength with
respective experiment parameters. The illustration shows
Fig. 16  Experimental results of
flexural strength with respect to
various infill patterns
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
that Cu composition has the most significant impact on
flexural strength, followed by infill pattern and interaction
between infill pattern with Cu composition.
The significance of infill pattern, Cu composition, and
interaction between infill pattern with Cu composition
toward flexural strength is confirmed through statistical
evaluation shown in Table 17. With confidence level is
set to 95% (α = 0.05), the infill pattern, Cu composition,
and interaction between infill pattern with Cu composi-
tion have P values of 0.000, 0.000, and 0.029, respec-
tively, which are lower than 0.05 confirming these three
parameters has a significant effect toward flexural strength.
Meanwhile, the second-order infill pattern effect has a P
value higher than 0.05, showing no significant effect on
flexural strength.
According to Table 17, the P value of the model is 0.000,
showing that the model created for flexural strength is sta-
tistically significant. The model is shown in Eq. 6.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 17  Experimental results of
flexural modulus with respect to
various infill patterns

Flexural strength (MPa) = 30.24 + 3.045 ∗ infill pattern
+ 0.079 ∗ infill pattern ∗ infill pattern
− 0.02582 ∗ infill pattern
(6)
The average percentage error of the model as compared
to experimental values is 2.06%. The model can be deduced
that it can predict flexural strength with satisfactory accu-
racy. Figure 19 shows the Pareto effects of flexural modu-
lus with respective experiment parameters. The illustration
shows that Cu composition has the most significant effect on
flexural modulus, followed by infill pattern and interaction
between infill pattern with Cu composition.
The significance of infill pattern, Cu composition, and
interaction between infill pattern with Cu composition
toward flexural modulus is confirmed through statistical
evaluation shown in Table 18. With confidence level is set
to 95% (α = 0.05), the infill pattern, Cu composition, and
interaction between infill pattern with Cu composition have
P values of 0.000, 0.000, and 0.032, respectively, which are
lower than 0.05 confirming these three parameters has a
significant effect toward flexural modulus. Meanwhile, the
second-order infill pattern effect has a P value higher than
0.05, showing no significant effect on flexural modulus.
According to Table 18, the P value of the model is 0.000,
showing that the model created for flexural modulus is sta-
tistically significant. The model is shown in Eq. 7.
Flexural modulus (GPa) = 0.4573 + 0.0436 ∗ infill pattern
+ 0.002157 − 0.00273 ∗ infill pattern
∗ infill pattern + 0.000358 ∗ infill pattern
(7)

Fig. 18  Pareto chart of flexural

strength

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 17  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value

flexural strength
Model 4 99.65% 905.698 226.424 359.82 0.000
  Linear 2 98.53% 895.439 447.720 711.49 0.000
    Infill pattern 1 10.30% 93.579 93.579 148.71 0.000
    Cu wt.% 1 88.23% 801.861 801.861 1274.26 0.000
  Square 1 0.02% 0.174 0.174 0.28 0.621
    Infill pattern*infill pattern 1 0.02% 0.174 0.174 0.28 0.621
  2-way interaction 1 1.11% 10.084 10.084 16.03 0.010
    Infill pattern*Cu wt.% 1 1.11% 10.084 10.084 16.03 0.010
Error 5 0.35% 3.146 0.629
Total 9 100.00%
Standard deviation (S) = 0.793268
R2 = 99.65%
R2-adjusted = 99.38%
R2-predicted = 98.63%

The average percentage error of the model as com-
pared to experimental values is 1.24%. The model can be
deduced that it can predict flexural modulus with satisfactory
accuracy. For both flexural strength and flexural modulus,
infill pattern, Cu wt.%, and interaction between infill pat-
tern with Cu wt.% show a significant effect. The flexural
strength and flexural modulus model has an error of just
2.06% and 1.24%, respectively. The maximum flexural
strength obtained through optimization is 38.0075 MPa with
a concentric infill pattern with parameters combined with
25 wt.% Cu. Meanwhile, 0.9228 GPa for flexural modulus
respectively by parameters Concentric infill pattern with
80 wt.% Cu.
The overall summary of the tensile compression and
bending analysis is shown in Fig. 20. The concentric infill
pattern has the maximum strength in both tensile and the
flexural properties and the compression properties grid pat-
tern has the maximum compression strength and modulus,
and concentric pattern as follows. Moreover, the modulus
value is higher in the 80% of the copper composition and the
25% of copper composite has more strength than the 80wt%.
Compared with the previous results.

Fig. 19  Pareto chart of flexural

modulus

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 18  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value

flexural modulus
Model 4 99.10% 123,475 30,868.8 138.14 0.000
  Linear 2 97.38% 121,329 60,664.6 271.47 0.000
    Infill pattern 1 34.03% 42,403 42,403.1 189.75 0.000
    Cu wt.% 1 63.35% 78,926 78,926.0 353.19 0.000
  Square 1 0.17% 209 208.6 0.93 0.378
    Infill pattern*infill pattern 1 0.17% 209 208.6 0.93 0.378
  2-Way interaction 1 1.55% 1937 1937.4 8.67 0.032
    Infill pattern*Cu wt.% 1 1.55% 1937 1937.4 8.67 0.032
Error 5 0.90% 1117 223.5
Total 9 100.00%
Standard deviation (S) = 14.9488
R2 = 99.10%
R2-adjusted = 98.39%
R2-predicted = 97.37%

Fig. 20  Statistical analysis of
overall properties

5 Conclusion pattern with Cu composition show a considerable influence.

In this research work, a novel composite of Cu-reinforced
PLA filament was developed. The test specimens are printed
based on ASTM standards with the incorporation of vari-
ous infill pattern and different copper compositions using
low cost fused deposition modeling 3D printer. Mechanical
test comprising tensile test, flexural test, and compression
test has been successfully conducted on the printed speci-
mens based on ASTM standards. Tensile test results showed
that only the infill pattern expressed a significant effect on
young’s modulus. Whereas, for UTS and Yield strength,
infill pattern, Cu composition, and interaction between
infill pattern with Cu composition showed a significant
effect. The flexural test showed both flexural strength and
flexural modulus were highly dependent on infill pattern,
Cu composition, and interaction between infill pattern with
Cu composition. The compression test showed that the infill
pattern and Cu composition showed a significant effect on
compressive strength. Whereas, for compressive modulus,
infill pattern, Cu composition, and interaction between infill
The Cu composition of 25 wt.% and 80 wt.% in both materi-
als showed a significant difference for all mechanical prop-
erties. The 25 wt.% Cu generally have better mechanical
strength than specimens printed with 80 wt.%. However,
the 80 wt.% specimens demonstrated stiffer characteristics
under the tensile test, flexural test, and compression test. In
conclusion, the mechanical results showed that 25 wt.% Cu
with concentric infill pattern is the most favorable parameter
if tensile strength and flexural strength are the chief concern.
As for parts in need of compressive strength, the 25 wt.% Cu
with grid infill pattern is recommended. As of the 80 wt.%
Cu materials, it will be a preferable option if parts are in
favor of higher modulus of elasticity and mechanical strength
is not a concern. The significance of the printing parameter
toward mechanical property is evaluated statistically, and a
model to predict the properties is proposed. The comparison
between the modeling of mechanical properties with respect
to actual experimental results is conducted in terms of accu-
racy verification. The significance of the infill pattern toward
young’s modulus is confirmed through statistical analysis

13

with respect to actual testing results, while the significance
of infill pattern, Cu composition, and interaction between
infill pattern with Cu composition toward UTS is confirmed.
The response surface methodology (RSM) analysis con-
firmed the importance of infill pattern and Cu composition
toward compressive strength, while the significance of infill
pattern, Cu composition, and interaction between infill pat-
tern with Cu composition toward compressive modulus is
evidenced. The conducted RSM analysis proved the signifi-
cance of all three factors on both flexural strength/ modulus,
including the infill pattern, Cu composition, and interaction
between infill pattern with Cu composition, consequently.
The result is satisfactory assessed with the previous studies
with the copper composites. This composite can be used for
electrical and electronic applications of electrical contacts
and electrodes, arcing resistance electrodes, and thermal
management devices. The future focused on the thermal and
electrical conductivity also analyze the copper composite
properties with various parameters will enhance the proper-
ties of the product.
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank Universiti Malay-
sia Pahang (UMP) for the financial support under grant RDU192216,
RDU192403 and RDU190352.
Author contribution  AK: conceptualization, methodology, investiga-
tion, formal analysis, writing-original draft. MS: investigation, writing-
original draft, supervision. KK: supervision, validation, project
administration, writing-original draft, funding acquisition. MMR:
methodology, writing-original draft. MMN: methodology, writing-
original draft.
Funding  This research is supported by Universiti Malaysia Pahang
providing grant under no. RDU192216, RDU192403 and RDU190352.
Declarations  17. Rankouhi B, Javadpour S, Delfanian F, Letcher T (2016) Failure
Ethics approval  Not applicable.
Consent to participate  Not applicable.
Consent to publish  Not applicable.
Competing interests  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Bikas H, Stavropoulos P, Chryssolouris G (2016) Additive
manufacturing methods and modelling approaches: a critical
review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83(1–4):389–405
2. Srivatsan TS, Sudarshan TS (2015) Additive manufacturing:
innovations, advances, and applications. CRC Press
3. Chacón JM, Caminero MA, Núñez PJ, García-Plaza E, García-
Moreno I, Reverte JM (2019) Additive manufacturing of con-
tinuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused
deposition modelling: Effect of process parameters on mechani-
cal properties. Compos Sci Technol 181:107688
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
4. Wu H et al (2017) Fabrication of dense zirconia-toughened
alumina ceramics through a stereolithography-based additive
manufacturing. Ceram Int 43(1):968–972
5. Kalms M, Narita R, Thomy C, Vollertsen F, Bergmann RB
(2019) New approach to evaluate 3D laser printed parts in
powder bed fusion-based additive manufacturing in-line within
closed space. Addit Manuf 26:161–165
6. Yap YL, Wang C, Sing SL, Dikshit V, Yeong WY, Wei J (2017)
Material jetting additive manufacturing: an experimental study
using designed metrological benchmarks. Precis Eng 50:275–285
7. Luong DX et  al (2018) Laminated object manufacturing
of 3D-printed laser-induced graphene foams. Adv Mater
30(28):1707416
8. Bhardwaj T, Shukla M, Paul CP, Bindra KS (2019) Direct
energy deposition-laser additive manufacturing of titanium-
molybdenum alloy: parametric studies, microstructure and
mechanical properties. J Alloys Compd 787:1238–1248
9. Turner BN, Strong R, Gold SA (2014) A review of melt extru-
sion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and
modeling. Rapid Prototyp J
10. Kazmer D (2017) “Three-dimensional printing of plastics,” in
Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook, Elsevier, pp 617–634
11. Abbott AC, Tandon GP, Bradford RL, Koerner H, Baur JW
(2018) Process-structure-property effects on ABS bond strength
in fused filament fabrication. Addit Manuf 19:29–38
12. Nancharaiah T, Raju DR, Raju VR (2010) An experimental
investigation on surface quality and dimensional accuracy of
FDM components. Int J Emerg Technol 1(2):106–111
13. Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2009) Improving dimen-
sional accuracy of fused deposition modelling processed part
using grey Taguchi method. Mater Des 30(10):4243–4252
14. Sun Q, Rizvi GM, Bellehumeur CT, Gu P (2008) Effect of pro-
cessing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer fila-
ments. Rapid Prototyp J
15. Zhang Y, Chou K (2008) A parametric study of part distortions in
fused deposition modelling using three-dimensional finite element
analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf. 222(8):959–968
16. Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D (2018)
Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials,
methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B Eng
143:172–196
analysis and mechanical characterization of 3D printed ABS
with respect to layer thickness and orientation. J Fail Anal Prev
16(3):467–481
18. Guessasma S, Belhabib S, Nouri H, Ben Hassana O (2016) Ani-
sotropic damage inferred to 3D printed polymers using fused
deposition modelling and subject to severe compression. Eur
Polym J 85:324–340
19. Ahn S, Montero M, Odell D, Roundy S, Wright PK (2002) Ani-
sotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS.
Rapid Prototyp J
20. Wendt C et al (2015) Preliminary design and analysis of tensile
test samples developed by Additive Manufacturing. Procedia
Eng 132:132–139
21. Durgun I, Ertan R (2014) Experimental investigation of FDM
process for improvement of mechanical properties and produc-
tion cost. Rapid Prototyp J
22. Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2010) Parametric appraisal
of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed
parts. Mater Des 31(1):287–295
23. Carneiro OS, Silva AF, Gomes R (2015) Fused deposition modeling
with polypropylene. Mater Des 83:768–776
24. Minetola P, Galati M (2018) A challenge for enhancing the
dimensional accuracy of a low-cost 3D printer by means of
self-replicated parts. Addit Manuf 22:256–264
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
25. Russell R et al (2019) Qualification and certification of metal
additive manufactured hardware for aerospace applications.
Addit Manuf Aerosp Ind 33–66
26. Monzon MD, Diaz N, Benitez AN, Marrero MD, Hernandez
PM (2010) “Advantages of fused deposition modeling for mak-
ing electrically conductive plastic patterns.” In International
Conference on Manufacturing Automation, pp 37−43
27. Körner C (2016) Additive manufacturing of metallic components
by selective electron beam melting—a review. Int Mater Rev
61(5):361–377
28. Fattah-Alhosseini A, Imantalab O (2015) Effect of accumulative
roll bonding process on the electrochemical behavior of pure
copper. J Alloys Compd 632:48–52
29. Rathmayr GB, Pippan R (2012) Extrinsic and intrinsic fracture
behavior of high pressure torsion deformed nickel. Scr Mater
66(8):507–510
30. Vinogradov A, Yasnikov IS, Matsuyama H, Uchida M, Kaneko
Y, Estrin Y (2016) Controlling strength and ductility: disloca-
tion-based model of necking instability and its verification for
ultrafine grain 316L steel. Acta Mater 106:295–303
31. Jia D, Ramesh KT, Ma E (2003) Effects of nanocrystalline and
ultrafine grain sizes on constitutive behavior and shear bands in
iron. Acta Mater 51(12):3495–3509
32. Wang Y, Chen M, Zhou F, Ma E (2002) High tensile ductility
in a nanostructured metal. Nature 419(6910):912–915
33. Hu Y, Cong W (2018) A review on laser deposition-additive
manufacturing of ceramics and ceramic reinforced metal matrix
composites. Ceram Int 44(17):20599–20612
34. Hohenwarter A, Pippan R (2011) Fracture toughness evaluation
of ultrafine-grained nickel. Scr Mater 64(10):982–985
35. De Chialvo MRG, Arvia AJ (1985) The electrochemical behav-
iour of copper in alkaline solutions containing sodium sulphide.
J Appl Electrochem 15(5):685–696
36. Daneshvar-Fatah F, Mostafaei A, Hosseinzadeh-Taghani R,
Nasirpouri F (2013) Caustic corrosion in a boiler waterside
tube: root cause and mechanism. Eng Fail Anal 28:69–77
37. Procaccini R, Vázquez M, Ceré S (2009) Copper and brass aged
at open circuit potential in slightly alkaline solutions. Electro-
chim Acta 54(28):7324–7329
38. Kear G, Barker BD, Walsh FC (2004) Electrochemical corrosion
of unalloyed copper in chloride media––a critical review. Corros
Sci 46(1):109–135
39. Kunze J, Maurice V, Klein LH, Strehblow H-H, Marcus P (2004)
In situ STM study of the duplex passive films formed on Cu (1
1 1) and Cu (0 0 1) in 0.1 M NaOH. Corros Sci 46(1):245–264
40. Kautek W, Gordon JG II (1990) XPS studies of anodic surface
films on copper electrodes. J Electrochem Soc 137(9):2672
41. Souto RM, Gonzalez S, Salvarezza RC, Arvia AJ (1994) Kinetics
of copper passivation and pitting corrosion in Na2SO4 containing
dilute NaOH aqueous solution. Electrochim Acta 39(17):2619–2628
42. Nady H, El-Rabiei MM, Samy M (2017) Corrosion behavior and
electrochemical properties of carbon steel, commercial pure tita-
nium, copper and copper–aluminum–nickel alloy in 3.5% sodium
chloride containing sulfide ions. Egypt J Pet 26(1):79–94
43. Alfantazi AM, Ahmed TM, Tromans D (2009) Corrosion behavior
of copper alloys in chloride media. Mater Des 30(7):2425–2430
44. Fattah-alhosseini A, Keshavarz MK, Masomi A, Marianaji S
(2015) Semiconducting behavior of pure copper in alkaline solu-
tions. Egypt J Pet 24(4):405–409
45. Razumakov AA, Stepanova NV, Bataev IA, Lenivtseva OG,
Riapolova II, Emurlaev KI (2016) The structure and properties of
cast iron alloyed with copper. In IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering 124(1):12136
46. Chen H-C, Bi G, Nai MLS, Wei J (2015) Enhanced welding effi-
ciency in laser welding of highly reflective pure copper. J Mater
Process Technol 216:287–293
47. Gu D, Shen Y, Fang S, Xiao J (2007) Metallurgical mechanisms
in direct laser sintering of Cu–CuSn–CuP mixed powder. J Alloys
Compd 438(1–2):184–189
48. Tang Y, Loh HT, Wong YS, Fuh JYH, Lu L, Wang X (2003)
Direct laser sintering of a copper-based alloy for creat-
ing three-dimensional metal parts. J Mater Process Technol
140(1–3):368–372
49. Zhu HH, Lu L, Fuh JYH (2003) Development and characterisation
of direct laser sintering Cu-based metal powder. J Mater Process
Technol 140(1–3):314–317
50. Gu DD, Meiners W, Wissenbach K, Poprawe R (2012) Laser addi-
tive manufacturing of metallic components: materials, processes
and mechanisms. Int Mater Rev 57(3):133–164
51. Guschlbauer R, Momeni S, Osmanlic F, Körner C (2018) Pro-
cess development of 99.95% pure copper processed via selective
electron beam melting and its mechanical and physical properties.
Mater Charact 143:163–170
52. Frigola P et al (2014) Fabricating copper components. Adv Mater
Process 20
53. Lodes MA, Guschlbauer R, Koerner C (2015) Process develop-
ment for the manufacturing of 99.94% pure copper via selective
electron beam melting. Mater Lett 143:298–301
54. Ramirez DA et al (2011) Open-cellular copper structures fab-
ricated by additive manufacturing using electron beam melting.
Mater Sci Eng A 528(16–17):5379–5386
55. Ramirez DA et al (2011) Novel precipitate–microstructural archi-
tecture developed in the fabrication of solid copper components by
additive manufacturing using electron beam melting. Acta Mater
59(10):4088–4099
56. Postiglione G, Natale G, Griffini G, Levi M, Turri S (2015) Con-
ductive 3D microstructures by direct 3D printing of polymer/car-
bon nanotube nanocomposites via liquid deposition modeling.
Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 76:110–114
57. Zhuang Y et al (2017) 3D–printing of materials with anisotropic
heat distribution using conductive polylactic acid composites.
Mater Des 126:135–140
58. Vogel J, Kessler MR, Sundararajan S, Grewell D (2012) Activation
energy for diffusion and welding of PLA films. Polym Eng Sci
52(8):1693–1700
59. Kuo C-C et al (2016) Preparation of starch/acrylonitrile-butadiene-
styrene copolymers (ABS) biomass alloys and their feasible evaluation
for 3D printing applications. Compos Part B Eng 86:36–39
60. Stephens B, Azimi P, El Orch Z, Ramos T (2013) Ultrafine
particle emissions from desktop 3D printers. Atmos Environ
79:334–339
61. Groenendyk M, Gallant R (2013) 3D printing and scanning at the
Dalhousie University Libraries: a pilot project. Libr Hi Tech
62. Letcher T, Waytashek M (2014) Material property testing of
3D-printed specimen in PLA on an entry-level 3D printer. In
ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Expo-
sition, vol 46438, p V02AT02A014
63. Wittbrodt B, Pearce JM (2015) The effects of PLA color on material
properties of 3-D printed components. Addit Manuf 8:110–116
64. King DL, Babasola A, Rozario J, Pearce JM (2014) Development
of mobile solar photovoltaic powered open-source 3-D printers for
distributed customized manufacturing in off-grid communities.
Challenges Sustain 2(1):18–27
65. Lanzotti A, Grasso M, Staiano G, Martorelli M (2015) The impact
of process parameters on mechanical properties of parts fabricated
in PLA with an open-source 3-D printer. Rapid Prototyp J
66. Tymrak BM, Kreiger M, Pearce JM (2014) Mechanical properties
of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under
realistic environmental conditions. Mater Des 58:242–246
67. Song Y, Li Y, Song W, Yee K, Lee K-Y, Tagarielli VL (2017) Meas-
urements of the mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed
PLA. Mater Des 123:154–164
13

68. Nikzad M, Masood SH, Sbarski I (2011) Thermo-mechanical
properties of a highly filled polymeric composites for fused depo-
sition modeling. Mater Des 32(6):3448–3456
69. Hwang S, Reyes EI, Moon K, Rumpf RC, Kim NS (2015) Thermo-
mechanical characterization of metal/polymer composite filaments
and printing parameter study for fused deposition modeling in the
3D printing process. J Electron Mater 44(3):771–777
70. Fafenrot S, Grimmelsmann N, Wortmann M, Ehrmann A (2017)
Three-dimensional (3D) printing of polymer-metal hybrid
materials by fused deposition modeling. Materials (Basel)
10(10):1199
71. Ryder MA, Lados DA, Iannacchione GS, Peterson AM (2018)
Fabrication and properties of novel polymer-metal composites
using fused deposition modeling. Compos Sci Technol 158:43–50
72. Masood SH, Song WQ (2004) Development of new metal/poly-
mer materials for rapid tooling using fused deposition modelling.
Mater Des 25(7):587–594
73. Fattah-Alhosseini A, Imantalab O, Attarzadeh FR (2016) Enhanc-
ing the electrochemical behavior of pure copper by cyclic
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
potentiodynamic passivation: a comparison between coarse-and
nano-grained pure copper. Metall Mater Trans B 47(5):2761–2770
74. ASTM S (1997) Standard test methods for flexural properties
of unreinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating
materials. ASTM D790. Annu B ASTM Stand
75. Zhang X, Chen L, Mulholland T, Osswald TA (2019) Characterization
of mechanical properties and fracture mode of PLA and copper/PLA
composite part manufactured by fused deposition modeling. SN Appl
Sci 1(6):1–12
76. Jiang W, Gong J, Tu ST (2010) A study of the effect of filler metal
thickness on tensile strength for a stainless steel plate-fin structure by
experiment and finite element method. Mater Des 31(5):2387–2396
77. Fattahi M, Aghaei VN, Dabiri AR, Amirkhanlou S, Akhavan S,
Fattahi Y (2015) Novel manufacturing process of nanoparticle/Al
composite filler metals of tungsten inert gas welding by accumula-
tive roll bonding. Mater Sci Eng A 648:47–50
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.