Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Evaluation of fracture properties of 3D printed high impact polystyrene

according to essential work of fracture: Effect of raster angle
Seyyed Ali Sajjadi a, Faramarz Ashenai Ghasemi a, *, 1, Pouya Rajaee a, Mohammad Fasihi b
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this work is to study the influence of different lay-ups on fracture properties for high-impact
Additive manufacturing polystyrene (HIPS) processed via material extrusion. The fracture properties of 3D printed HIPS were studied
Material extrusion based on the essential work of fracture (EWF). The obtained data was in good agreement with the EWF criteria.
High impact polystyrene
Results showed that [− 45/45]5 and [0]5 lay-ups had the highest (10.855 KJ.m− 2) and lowest (1.6338 KJ.m− 2)
Essential work of fracture
resistance to crack initiation (we) of 3D printed HIPS, respectively. Also, the highest and lowest value of non-
essential work of fracture (βwp) were related to [0]5 and [0/90]5 lay-ups with values of 2.4357 and 0.4371
KJ.m− 3, respectively. Furthermore, SEM fractography was used to analyze the fracture mechanism and porosity
(triangular air gaps) of the specimens. A variety of fracture mechanisms, including micro-hills, fibrillated
structures, and pull-out were dominant in this study.

1. Introduction One of the most significant disadvantages of material extrusion is the

Additive Manufacturing (AM) techniques are numerous, and each
AM method is characterized by a specific physical process and a depo­
sition strategy. One of the most common and cost-effective additive
manufacturing technologies is material extrusion, which can be used to
print thermoplastic polymers [1]. Material extrusion has several ad­
vantages such as simplicity of operation, lower manufacturing cost, fast
processing, and the ability to process a wide range of thermoplastics
with complex structures [2–6]. There are several materials for printing
by the material extrusion method. High impact polystyrene (HIPS) is one
of the materials of material extrusion processes, which is a low-cost
polymer that facilitates manufacturing and machining. Due to its high
dimensional stability and ease of fabrication, painting, and connector, it
is used commercially in the pre-production of prototypes [1,7]. In the 3D
printing industry, HIPS is used as support materials but has different
applications in research fields. For example, Singh et al. [1] and Kumar
et al. [7] conducted mechanical tests to find the best combination of
materials among acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polylactic acid
(PLA), and HIPS. Souza et al. [8] studied the mechanical properties of
ABS/HIPS blends to analyze the effect of bullet size and particle size
through injection molding.
low mechanical properties of the products [9,10]. The effect of
manufacturing process parameters on the mechanical properties of
products made by material extrusion has been studied [11,12]. One of
the key solutions to reduce defects and increase mechanical strength is
to optimize the key parameters of the printing process. Some of these
parameters are infill pattern, print direction (raster angle), raster width,
print speed, extrusion temperature, plate temperature, layer thickness,
wall thickness, to name but a few. The study of the effect of these pa­
rameters on the fracture mechanics of additive samples in polymeric
materials is increasing rapidly [13,14–18].
One of the most important features of polymers in engineering ap­
plications is evaluating their fracture toughness. Fracture mechanics,
which determine the reaction of cracked materials to applied loads and
provide methods for quantifying toughness, can be used to characterize
a polymer’s toughness. The theory of post-yielding fracture mechanics
(PYFM) is commonly used to calculate the fracture toughness of ductile
materials [19]. The J-integral approach and the essential fracture work
method (EWF) are two of the most prominent methods for determining
the toughness of ductile polymers. The most significant advantages of
EWF compare to J-integral are ease of testing, ease of preparation, and
the ability to quantify fracture behavior not only until the crack initiate

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: faramarz_ashenai_ghasemi@yahoo.com, f.a.ghasemi@sru.ac.ir (F. Ashenai Ghasemi).
1
P.O.B.16785-136, Tehran.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.103191
Received 17 March 2022; Received in revised form 19 September 2022; Accepted 30 September 2022
Available online 4 October 2022
2214-8604/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

For example, Bañuelos et al. [13] and Verma et al. [6] studied the
fracture properties of printed specimens as a function of the raster angle.
Bañuelos et al. reported that in PP-printed specimens, the 0◦ raster angle
showed better fracture parameters, and the 90◦ raster angle showed no
stable crack propagation. Verma et al. also confirmed that the failure
initiation resistance for ABS printed specimens at the 0◦ raster angle is
greater than the 90◦ raster angle. Yin et al. [24] also investigated the
effect of print speed and extrusion temperature on fracture parameters
for PLA and PP samples. They found that the fracture values improved
by increasing the extrusion temperature.
The fracture analysis of 3D printed polymers via material extrusion
according to the EWF method is a new field, and the fracture charac­
teristics of all-polymer samples made by 3D printing have not yet been
investigated. Therefore, in the present work, the fracture toughness of
high-impact polystyrene as a function of the raster angle with different
lay-ups via the EWF method is analyzed. The fracture toughness of
different lay-ups was examined with a combination of 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦
raster angles. Also, the effect of different lay-ups on the porosity and the
fracture mechanism is investigated by SEM photography.

2. EWF theory

The influence of notch on AM components has also been investigated

Fig. 1. Schematic of DENT Specimen.
by various authors for metals [25,26] and polymers [27,28]. One
possible approach in this context is to consider the EWF, which was first
Table 1
proposed by Burberg [29,30] to describe fracture of metals and alloys
Manufacturing parameters. and was developed by Cottrell and Riddle [31].
This method is based on the division of consumed energy (Wf) during
Manufacturing parameters Value
failure of a pre-notched specimen in two distinct regions (inner and
Layer height 0.2 mm outer) visible in Fig. 1. The inner zone is also called the inner fracture
Extrusion width 0.4 mm
process zone (IFPZ), where the actual fracture process occurs with the
Nozzle diameter 0.4 mm
Nozzle temperature 245 ◦ C formation of two new areas. The energy associated with it is the essential
Build plate temperature 100 ◦ C work of fracture (We) proportional to the area of the ligament (L.t). In
Flow 100% the outer region, also called the plastic region, energy is involved in the
Infill percentage 100% non-essential work of fracture or plastic work (Wp), which is primarily
Infill pattern lines
Wall thickness 0.4 mm
used in the deformation of plastics and other energy-consuming pro­
Print speed 40 mm/s cesses. The work consumed in this area is proportional to the volume of
Travel speed 120 mm/s the deformed area during crack propagation. Therefore, the term plastic
work (Wp) is related to the outer plastic deformation zone (OPDZ). Both
defined regions (IFPZ and OPDZ) are graphically represented in the
but also during the crack propagation [20–23].
scheme shown in Fig. 1 for DENT samples. These concepts are expressed
Also, crack generation methods that are available in polymers can be
to the following equation:
used in the analysis of AM samples. It should be noted that
manufacturing parameters such as temperature, raster angle, and Wf = We + WP = we .L.t + βwp . L2 .t (1)
deposition direction can affect the fracture mechanism and toughness.

Fig. 2. material extrusion Process.

2
S.A. Sajjadi et al.
Fig. 3. Raster angle and lay-up modes of DENT specimens: a)[0]5 b) [90]5 c) [45]5 d) [− 45/45]5 e) [0/90]5 f) [90/0]5 g) [90/− 45/90/45/90] h) [0/− 45/0/45/0].
where We is the essential work of fracture, WP is the non-essential work
of fracture, L is ligament length, t is the sample thickness, and β is the
coefficient of the shape of the plastic area. In addition, when the above
equation is divided by the area of the ligament (L.t), the expressions of
(Wf, we, and wp) are shown in Eq. (2).
/
wf = Wf (L.t) = we + βwp .L (2)
The specific total fracture work (wf) is a linear function of the liga­
ment length. With plotting wf versus ligament length, the two main
parameters, we (intercept elevation), and βwp (line slope) will be ach­
ieved. The former is closely related to the fracture toughness of the
specimen, and the latter is closely related to the ductility of the specimen
[32]. Specific essential work of fracture (we) is theoretically dependent
on thickness and equivalent to JIC [33]. However, the EWF method
offers experimental advantages over the J-integral method as its
simplicity and applicability for thin samples. Furthermore, the expres­
sion βwp includes a morphologically sensitive component that may be
used to assess toughness in thin specimens [34]. In addition, conditions
must be met for the correct application of the EWF method, which
includes:
1) The length of the ligament must be utterly yielded prior to the onset
of crack propagation.
3
Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191
2) The fracture happens under plane stress states.
3) Load-displacement curves shall be self-similar for each sample at a
series of different ligament lengths.
3. Experimental
3.1. Materials
HIPS with a density of 1.05 g/ cm3, melt flow index (MFI) (200 ◦ C/ 5
Kg) of 3 g/ 10 min, IZOD impact strength of 11 KJ/m2, the tensile
strength of 27 MPa, elongation at break of 55% and filament diameter of
1.75 mm for manufacturing the test specimens via material extrusion
process was supplied from eSUN, Shenzhen, China. The recommended
printing temperature for the extruder and heat bed is 230–270◦ C and
100–115◦ C, respectively.
3.2. Sample preparation
3.2.1. Material extrusion process
ANET ET4 FDM printer (Anet Technology Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China)
was utilized to prepare specimens. To print required geometries, CAD
models of specimens were modeled in 3D printable STL format via
SolidWorks. Since a designed model with specific printing parameters in
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Fig. 4. Load-displacement diagram for 3D printed specimens with different lay-ups and compression molded specimen: a) HIPS, b) [0]5, c) [90]5, d) [45]5, e) [45/
− 45]5, f) [0/90]5, g) [90/0]5, h) [90/− 45/90/45/90], i) [0/− 45/0/45/0].

4
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Table 2
Mean maximum load values for 3D printed for different ligament lengths and lay-ups and compression-molded specimens.
Sample Fmax

Ligament 7 Ligament 9 Ligament 11 Ligament 13 Ligament 15

Average value St. Average value St. Average value St. Average value St. Average value St.
(N) Dev (N) Dev (N) Dev (N) Dev (N) Dev

Molded HIPS 155.5339 10.82 219.1705 1.78 274.7628 4.03 353.2477 3.59 387.3207 6.36
[90]5 105.9741 6.32 159.1091 3.03 201.4900 4.60 232.2986 3.20 276.7728 7.02
[0]5 166.9250 4.28 198.2109 16.77 237.9591 6.76 336.1783 7.75 396.5530 17.80
[45]5 108.0871 19.70 156.7557 3.73 179.1866 6.37 236.7624 7.27 276.3637 17.90
[− 45/45]5 120.0548 3.01 162.8913 11.52 203.1570 7.84 263.7725 15.50 286.7616 7.47
[0/90/0/90/0] 107.9209 5.05 144.9723 4.34 165.4240 3.95 215.9936 29.20 244.2514 8.75
[0/− 45/0/45/0] 136.5276 5.05 202.3571 11.41 213.0235 26.7 285.4951 2.20 302.4554 22.50
[90/0/90/0/90] 114.2434 3.80 159.6995 3.30 189.8279 13.97 220.1262 4.20 252.1018 4.23
[90/− 45/90/45/ 108.6410 3.96 154.9784 9.06 205.6078 8.91 231.3009 22.50 274.7180 12.08
90]

G-code format is needed in order to start the printing process, slicing
software, Cura, was utilized. The detailed manufacturing parameters for
the specimens are listed in Table 1, which are kept constant for all
specimens. Subsequently, specimens have been extruded layer by layer
to achieve a certain number of layers (5 layers) regarding the thickness
and height of each layer. Fig. 2 shows how the material extrusion pro­
cess work and deposits the molded material layer by layer on the bed.
Also, the scheme of different orientation types is shown in Fig. 3.
3.2.2. Compression molding
To compare and analyze the influence of various preparation
methods on the fracture behavior of HIPS, the hot-press molding tech­
nique was applied to achieve homogenous specimens. First of all, HIPS
filaments were chopped and placed in a cold mold and preheated to
245 ◦ C. Then, the pressure was increased slowly to 2 MPa for 3 min and
held at this pressure for another 2 min. After the molding process, the
mold was removed from the hot press and cooled at room temperature.
3.3. Characterization
3.3.1. EWF properties
To study the fracture properties of the specimens, EWF methodology
was carried out by using a Zwick/ Roell machine model Z010 (Zwick
Roell Group company, Germany) with a constant cross-head speed of
5 mm/ min at room temperature. The ligament lengths of DENT speci­
mens were 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 mm. The notches were located precisely
in the direction of the width of the specimens by utilizing a sharp razor
blade to produce a pre-crack tip. The dimensions of the EWF test spec­
imen were 80 × 25 × 1 mm3. At least 5 specimens for each ligament
length were tested for each orientation type to investigate EWF
parameters.
3.3.2. SEM microscopy
For a better understanding of failure mechanisms and porosity of the
DENT specimens prepared by the material extrusion process, specimens
were investigated using the JEOL JXA-840, scanning electron micro­
scopy (SEM) with the accelerating potential of 25 kV. To reduce electron
charging, the fracture surface of the DENT specimens obtained from
EWF testing were sputter-coated with a thin layer of gold prior to their
SEM observation.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Load-displacement curves
Fig. 4 shows load-displacement curves of the 3D printed DENT
specimens in different lay-ups and molded specimens for different lig­
ament lengths. It should be mentioned that the same scale in all axes was
not used because of visibility. The load-displacement curves for each
specimen have self-similarity with increasing ligament length. This
similarity in load-displacement curves, as expressed by Karger-Kocsis
[23], is one of the most important prerequisites for the validation of
the EWF method. The self-similarity guarantees that under the same
conditions, the process of failure and crack propagation is independent
of the ligament length. According to the load-displacement diagrams in
general, increasing the length of the ligament led to an increase in total
energy Wf (total area under the curve), maximum load (Fmax) (the values
of Fmax with standard deviation are reported in Table 2), and extension
at failure (εb). Another prerequisite for ensuring the validity of the EWF
test is fully yielding the ligament before the onset of crack growth and
stable crack propagation. Visual observation of the specimens during the
experiment showed that fully yielding of the ligament area occurred at
maximum load, meaning that the crack propagated stably [32,35].
To ensure that EWF data is obtained under plane stress conditions for
3D printed specimens with different lay-ups and molded specimen, net
cross-sectional stress (σmax = Fmax /l.t) was calculated for different lig­
ament lengths and plotted versus ligament lengths for all specimens in
Fig. 5. Based on the data, the mean maximum stress (σm) was calculated,
and if the maximum stress (σmax) is in the range of 0.9σm to 1.1σm, the
results are assumed to be valid [23,34].
The results clearly show that all experiments are performed under
plane stress conditions (no data with values higher than 1.1σm) and no
sample fails before full ligament yielding (no data with values lower
than 0.9 σm), which indicates the validity of the results.
For qualitative comparison with samples with regard to tensile
strength, this study used mean maximum stress (σm) as this property.
From Table 3, it can be seen that the tensile strength of [45]5 and [90]5
lay-ups compared to [0]5 one decreased by 28% and 27%, respectively.
It is clear that low adhesion between adjacent layer filaments due to
insufficient pressure during the material extrusion process is a defect.
This defect was minimized for 0◦ , therefore, good adhesion was ach­
ieved for this angle. In general, for a raster angle of 0◦ , more load should
be applied to yield and tear the specimens [36].
Poor tensile properties will be obtained when the test specimen is
loaded perpendicular to the fabrication direction ([90]5) due to poor
interlayer bonding and adhesion [36,37]. At 90◦ raster angle, which the
layers are aligned with a smaller raster length, and a large number of
raster lengths with less length increases the number of heating and
cooling cycles. This leads to the creation of cracks between the layers,
delamination, and separation between adjacent layers [38–40]. These
reasons reduced the tensile strength of [90]5 lay-up compared to [0]5
ones. In addition, the dominant fracture mechanism of [45]5 lay-up was
shear yielding due to the angle of the interlayer bonds. The high tensile
strength of the [45]5 specimens might be due to the fact that the bond
area between the layers was larger, as a result, the tensile strength
increased [40].
The lowest tensile strength was belonged to [0/90]5 and [90/0]5 lay-
ups mainly due to the loading direction parallel to the layers and raster

5
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Fig. 5. Sai-Hill criteria diagram for 3D printed specimens with different lay-ups and compression molded specimen: a) HIPS, b) [0]5, c) [90]5, d) [45]5, e) [− 45/
45]5, f) [0/90]5, g) [90/0]5, h) [0/− 45/0/45/0], i) [90/− 45/90/45/90].

6
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Table 3 properties [46]. In addition, the molding process caused excellent

Mean maximum stress and displacement at break values for 3D printed for entanglement of the polymer chains and thus increased the strength of
different lay-ups and compression-molded specimens. the fabricated material [36,48].
Sample σm εm For qualitative comparison with samples with regard to elongation at
Ave value St.Dev Ave value St.Dev
break, this study used mean displacement at break (εm) as this property
(MPa) (mm) (Table 3). The highest value of displacement at break of material
extrusion samples belonged to [45]5 and [− 45/45]5 lay-ups, and the
Molded HIPS 24.9088 1.816 1.8526 0.3713
[90]5 17.4912 1.329 1.3610 0.1968 lowest one was for [90/0]5 and [90]5. This can be considered due to the
[0]5 23.9598 2.216 2.0925 0.2771 stronger interlayer connection in cross structures at a 45◦ raster angle to
[45]5 17.1569 1.685 3.4442 0.8570 perpendicular cross structures.
[− 45/45]5 18.6252 1.322 2.4311 0.4860 When chains are placed closer to the direction of tension, they need
[0/90/0/90/0] 15.8924 0.742 1.5322 0.2800
[0/− 45/0/45/0] 20.6957 1.801 2.2735 0.5370
less strain to reach their maximum length. On the other hand, when the
[90/0/90/0/90] 17.0123 0.747 1.3822 0.2130 chains are perpendicular to the direction of tension, they are often un­
[90/− 45/90/45/90] 17.5077 1.458 1.5082 0.2498 able to readjust their direction [49]. Angles that are not parallel or
perpendicular to the direction of the load are subjected to a certain
rotation that changes the direction of the load, which leads to an in­
orientations [41,42]. Specimens produced by the combination of 0◦ or
crease in elongation [50]. By changing the angle of lay-ups from [90]5 to
90◦ raster angles show orthotropic properties by reducing the tensile
[0]5, the value of displacement at break increased by 53%.
strength along the direction perpendicular to the raster angles [43]. In
Fig. 6 shows the fracture process of ductile specimens. At the
the combination of two angles of 0◦ and 90◦ , some raster angles were
beginning of the experiment (point 2), the load increased steadily, and
placed parallel to the load, and the other was perpendicular to the
the crack tip areas began to deform and localize the whitening zone. As
loading direction.
the load increased at point 3, the stress whitening zone propagates along
Therefore, the effect of the crossover lay-up connection reduced the
the ligament area, which represented the maximum load on the curve as
strength of the sample [40]. Longer printing roads increased the possi­
the point of ligament yielding. After the peak, a rapid load drop occurred
bility of residual stress accumulation, which in turn increased distortion.
and subsequently, the crack tip of both the notches opened, and the
Roads at 0◦ were longer than other roads (like 90◦ , 45◦ , and their
crack propagated steadily. As a result, it lead failure of the specimen
combination). In addition, the contact length between neighboring
after load decreased with the overlap of the cracks in the middle of the
beads at 0◦ was longer than other printing orientations, and beads at 90◦
ligament [51].
acted as strong barriers to crack propagation [44]. As a result, since the
0◦ layers withstood the most tensile loads, its distortion was responsible
for reducing the tensile strength for samples with a lay-ups of [0/90]5 4.2. Fracture parameters of essential and non-essential work
compared to [− 45/45]5 [45].
By changing the lay-up mode from [45]5 to [− 45/45]5, it was Diagrams of Wf versus L for DENT test specimens produced by the
observed that the strength increased by 8%. This was due to the fact that, AM method in different lay-ups and the compression molding method
in this case, the effects of weak interlayer bonds were eliminated, and are shown in Fig. 7. It is noteworthy that Wf - L diagrams showed very
the crack propagated in a zig-zag road [44]. Cross-structure lay-up good linear relationships for all specimens studied in this investigation
indeed reduced the strength, but in cross-structures, the strength of the in terms of compliance with EWF theory. This agreement was proved by
specimen was the result of two raster angle interactions. Layers greater the fact that the linear regression coefficient (R2) is close to 1 in most
than 45◦ in cross-structures had a positive effect on strength. So raster cases. The values of specific total work of fracture for each ligament
angles parallel to the loading direction, effectively bear the load, while length, essential work of fracture (we) and non-essential work of fracture
layers of transverse raster angles do not bear much load [46]. (βwp) according to Eq. (2) for different lay-ups as well as linear regres­
By changing the lay-up mode from [0/90]5 to [− 45/45]5, the tensile sion coefficient are given in Table 4.
strength increased by 17%. The tensile strength for the molded specimen The experimental data showed that the [− 45/45]5 and [0]5 lay-ups
was higher compared to all 3D printing specimens. This difference was had the highest and lowest essential work of fracture (We) value,
mainly attributed to the air gap between the filaments and the wide respectively. Kiendl et al. [50] also reported that the raster angle of
voids within the layers [47]. Also, the molding process, due to the for­ 0◦ has the lowest fracture toughness. Also, Verma et al. [6] showed that
mation of crystals during construction, in turn, increased the mechanical [− 45/45] specimen had the highest essential work of fracture (we). On
the other hand, the highest and lowest non-essential work of fracture

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of load-displacement curves with ligament area deformation sequences during EWF test.

7
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Fig. 7. Wf versus L diagram for 3D printed specimens with different lay-ups and compression molded specimen: a) HIPS, b) [0]5, c) [90]5, d) [45]5, e) [− 45/45]5, f)
[0/90]5, g) [90/0]5, h) [90/− 45/90/45/90], i) [0/− 45/0/45/0].

8
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Tablee 4
Values of specific total, essential and non-essential works of fracture and linear regression for 3D printed specimens with different lay-ups and compression-molded
specimen.
Sample wf we βwp we R2
KJ KJ βwp
Ligament 7 Ligament 9 Ligament 11 Ligament 13 Ligament 15 ( 2) ( 3)
m m (m)
Average St. Average St. Average St. Average St. Average St.
value (KJ. Dev value (KJ. Dev value (KJ. Dev value (KJ. Dev value (KJ. Dev
m− 2) m− 2) m− 2) m− 2) m− 2)

Molded 18.9809 0.830 21.6172 1.498 24.3772 2.100 28.6963 3.070 27.2068 4.800 11.573 1.1440 8.0368 0.8473
HIPS
[90]5 22.4651 1.800 19.7824 0.927 27.5532 1.685 31.8105 0.411 39.6889 0.720 2.7832 0.8043 3.4604 0.9756
[0]5 7.9860 1.388 10.7879 1.682 11.8185 1.126 12.5125 3.590 15.1092 1.980 1.6338 2.4357 0.6707 0.8842
[45]5 18.9230 0.146 25.4834 0.621 34.2444 0.239 31.8165 1.382 34.3736 0.851 8.0320 1.9035 4.2196 0.7813
[− 45/ 19.4057 1.632 20.6313 1.303 24.0886 2.320 26.3848 1.800 28.4315 0.806 10.855 1.1991 9.0526 0.9623
45]5
[0/90/0/ 9.3894 1.244 12.2776 0.162 12.6886 0.575 12.5072 0.691 14.2499 0.268 7.3466 0.4371 16.8076 0.7834
90/0]
[0/− 45/ 17.8580 0.602 24.3164 2.590 26.4922 3.280 29.4603 0.741 30.7139 2.100 7.9491 1.6393 4.8491 0.9455
0/45/
0]
[90/0/ 10.3330 1.147 11.4196 0.639 11.5104 1.444 11.9818 0.074 14.3853 0.571 7.1386 0.4299 16.6052 0.7917
90/0/
90]
[90/ 7.7654 1.030 12.2457 1.311 13.7130 1.590 13.5416 0.301 14.1291 0.301 4.3043 0.7338 5.8657 0.7405
− 45/
90/45/
90]

Fig. 8. Schematic representation of porosity in material extrusion process: a) porosity between filaments b) porosity between layers.

(βwp) belonged to the samples with [0]5 and [90/0]5 lay-ups, respec­
tively. Rabbi et al. [52] also concluded that the [0/90] lay-up had the
highest crack propagation rate. It has been proven that during loading,
cracks propagate along the path with the least resistance from the
material.
Porosity (air gap) between two adjacent filaments, as seen in Fig. 8, is
due to the effects of accumulation during the material extrusion process
and the formation of unfilled cavities between different layers of molten
filament. The shape and size of these gaps may vary at different locations
depending on the printing orientation, raster angle, the shape of the
infill, and the thermodynamic parameters associated with layer cooling
[36]. As a result, porosity creates a weak bond to start and propagate the
crack. So it can be concluded that the crack is easily and quickly between
two consecutive bonds of [0/90]5, [90/0]5, and [90]5 lay-ups initiated
and propagated [52]. This confirms the low value of non-essential work
of fracture (βWp) for the mentioned specimens compared to the other
samples. Excessive porosity also causes poor interlayer adhesion [53].
The stress is concentrated in the interlayer bond region, as shown in
Fig. 11b. There are many air gaps in adjacent layers and interlayer bonds
that are prone to stress concentration [36]. These observations are
similar to the work of Heydari et al. [54], who argued that the nature of
the layer structure, particularly the adhesion between layers, had a
direct effect on mechanical properties.
Comparing the experimental data in Table 4 between the [0]5 and
[90]5 lay-ups, demonstrated that by changing the printing orientation to
perpendicular to the load, the essential work of fracture increased by
70%, and the value of non-essential work of fracture decreased by 67%.
This decrease was also reported by Verma et al. [6]. In the specimen
with a raster angle of 0◦ (Fig. 9a), the printed orientations were
perpendicular to the initiate and propagation of the crack, and under
tensile loading, the failure occurred due to the yielding of individual
filaments. Also, failure in deposited samples with all 90◦ fabrication
orientation (Fig. 10b and 11), in which cracks initiated and propagated
in the direction of the printing orientation, was affected by the interlayer
bonding area and the intera-layer bonding [43].
Also, considering the [45]5 lay-ups and comparing it with the [0]5
and [90]5 ones, the value of essential work of fracture and non-essential
work of fracture with a significant improvement reached 8.032 KJ/m2,

9
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Fig. 9. Schematic illustration of how cracks propagate in 3D printed specimens with different lay-ups: a) [0], b) [90] c) [45], d) [− 45/45], e) [0/90] or [90/0], f)
[0/45], g) [90/45].

10
S.A. Sajjadi et al.
Fig. 10. Picture of fractured 3D printed specimens with different lay-ups: a)
[0]5, b) [90]5, c) [45]5, d) [− 45/45]5, e) [0/90]5, f) [90/0]5, g) [90/− 45/90/
45/90], h) [0/− 45/0/45/0].
and 1.9035 KJ/m3, respectively. It was found that the value of essential
work of fracture of [45]5 lay-ups increased by 391% compared to [0]5
and 189% compared to [90]5 ones. This was probably attributed to the
decrease in porosity in [45]5 lay-ups compared to [0]5 and [90]5 ones
(this will discuss in the “SEM” section in details).
Also, non-essential work of fracture of [45]5 lay-ups decreased by
22% compared to [0]5 and increased by 137% compared to [90]5 ones.
By changing the lay-up mode from [45]5 to [− 45/45]5, the value of
essential work of fracture increased by 35%, and the value of non-
essential work of fracture decreased by 37%. Fig. 9d shows crack
propagation in specimens with a raster angle of [− 45/45]5 lay-ups. The
fracture occurs mainly due to a combination of interlayer and intralayer
failure (Fig. 10d and Fig. 11) [43]. This out-plane crack propagation
requires more energy to propagate the crack because the crack propa­
gates in a zig-zag pattern (as seen in Fig. 9d), which can be considered as
a reason for increasing the value of essential work of fracture of
[− 45/45]5 specimens. In addition, at 45◦ raster angles, crack propa­
gated in the direction of the print orientation and outside the crack
plane, which was evident in the deposited samples (Fig. 11c) [55]. Other
studies have also reported that the fracture toughness of [− 45/45]
specimens was much higher than specimens made in the unidirectional
(45◦ ) orientation [43,50].
By changing the lay-up mode from [0/90]5 to [0/45/0/− 45/0]
11
Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191
mode, there was no significant change in the value of essential work of
fracture, but the value of non-essential work of fracture increased by
275%. Because cracks require more energy to propagate out-plane [45].
Also, in both cases of [0/90]5 and [90/45/90/− 45/90]5, by replacing
the angles of − 45/45 degrees instead of 0◦ in lay-up mode, despite the
reduction of 40% of the essential work of fracture value, the value of
non-essential work of fracture increased by 71%. The reason of this
decrease in the value of essential work of fracture can be attributed to
the increase in the air gap between the layers.
However, by changing the lay-up mode from [− 45/45]5 to [0/90]5,
the essential work of fracture value decreased by 52%, due to the in­
crease in interlayer porosity (Fig. 13b) and also consumption of less
energy for crack propagation in cross structures. Furthermore, by
changing the lay-up mode from [90/0]5 to [− 45/45]5, the value of
essential work of fracture increased by 32%, and the non-essential work
of fracture value increased by 63%. Isaac et al. [56] also found that the
energy absorbed for ABS before the initiating of the crack was about
130% higher for the [− 45/45] lay-ups than [0/90] ones, while the
energy absorbed during the crack propagation was 800% higher.
Cicero et al. [57] also reported an increase in fracture toughness of
ABS by changing the lay-up mode from [0/90] to [− 45/45]. In the case
of print direction [− 45/45] lay-up, the filaments (− 45◦ or 45◦ ) were not
in the direction of the initial crack propagation path (as shown in
Fig. 9d), which potentially acted as a strong barrier and required more
energy to initiate and propagate the cracks [52]. Fracture in [0/90]5
lay-up were the combination of 0◦ and 90◦ fracture modes (Fig. 9e and
Fig. 11e); although these specimens had layers perpendicular to the
crack propagation direction, cross structure orientation did not lead to a
significant increase in fracture toughness [43].
To better understand, the effect of the difference between the
method of production of DENT samples, using material extrusion and
compression molding on the essential work of fracture parameters,
specimens made by compression molding were also investigated.
Observing the experimental data, revealed that the samples produced by
the compression molding method generally have a higher essential work
of fracture value and lower non-essential one compared to 3D printed
specimens.
It should be noted that porosity in the structure of the material and
adhesion between the layers have a significant effect on its mechanical
strength and fracture toughness, as they act as stress concentrators and
areas where cracks can easily initiate and propagate [42,58]. These
irregular voids are abundantly found in the interlayer locations in the 3D
printed specimens except in the homogeneous specimens (Fig. 12h
which is discussed in the “SEM” section in detail). Also, the higher
essential work of fracture can be considered due to the homogeneous
distribution of materials during construction [49].
4.3. SEM
To investigate the fracture surface and the porosity of the 3D printed
and molded specimens, microscopic images of the fracture surfaces of
the specimens were analyzed. Figs. 12–14 shows the fracture surface of
different raster angles for material extrusion and molded specimens. All
specimens made by the material extrusion method have macro-porosity
and gaps between layers, which is common in the additive
manufacturing process (even for a 100% infill rate). These defects are
made by incomplete overlap and bonding line during the material
extrusion process [59], uneven distribution of polymer during filament
extrusion, poor adhesion between layers [60], and accumulation effects
during the material extrusion process [36,55,61].
The source of these defects during the material extrusion process can
be attributed to many factors such as machine vibration, uneven filling,
and overheating. The increasing process temperature (245 ◦ C) reduces
the viscosity of the polymer, which prevents the filaments from having
their original circular cross-section [62]. It should be noted that the
compression molding process is performed in a constant temperature
S.A. Sajjadi et al.
Fig. 11. Schematic illustration of how intra-layer and inter-layer failure in different raster angle.
range, and the application of high pressure during molding leads to fill
the mold completely with the material flow in the mold. Consequently,
strong bonds are created between polymer chains [63]. As a result,
macro-scale porosities in the HIPS molded specimen are not seen
(Fig. 12h).
4.3.1. Porosity
An important aspect of investigating material fracture is to under­
stand the failure mechanisms. Fracture surface morphology generally
includes many features related to the failure process such as failure
mode and failure type [64]. During the material extrusion process,
various types of defects may occur that affect the mechanical behavior of
the 3D printed specimens via material extrusion. The triangular air gaps
(or physical gaps) that form between the layers, also known as the
interlayer porosity, are shown in Fig. 12 (a-d), which belong to [0]5,
[0/90]5, [0/45]5, [90/45]5 lay-ups, respectively. The shape and size of
these air gaps may vary at different locations depending on the raster
angle and the thermodynamic parameters associated with the layer
cooling process. Samples with material extrusion defects are prone to
high-stress concentrations that cause cracks to initiate and propagate
[65].
Cracks appeared first around triangular air gaps (Fig. 14a), and then
under loading, cracks propagated and caused to fail the specimen [36].
Intralayer cavities are also known as gas porosity, may be formed by the
shrinkage of the 3D printed specimen during the cooling process from
molten to solid during the material extrusion process. These cavities also
create stress concentrations that eventually cause to propagate the
cracks. The cavities can be minimized by optimizing the material
extrusion process temperature, printing speed, and cooling cycle [66].
These cavities and propagated cracks were found in [0]5 (Fig. 13c),
[90]5 (Fig. 13e), [45]5 (Fig. 13d), [- 45/45]5 (Fig. 13a) and [0/90]5
(Fig. 13b) specimens.
From Fig. 12e, the interlayer adhesion, of [90]5 was weaker than [0]5
(Fig. 12a) lay-up mode, and the main failure mechanism also depended
on the adhesion between adjacent checkered layers [36]. As observed
from Fig. 12b and e, the interlayer adhesion of [0/90]5 was lower than
12
Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191
[90]5, which was one of the main reasons why the mean maximum stress
(σm) of [0/90]5 was weaker than [90]5. From Fig. 12g and f, which
belong to [45]5 and [− 45/45]5, respectively, good interlayer adhesion
was inferred because the boundary between the layers at the fracture
surface is not very clear. This adhesion was stronger than [90]5 and [0]5
lay-ups. In Figs. 13b and 12c, which are for orthogonal ([0/90]5) and
diagonal ([0/45]5) lay-up mode, respectively, interlayer bonding was
clear indicating poor interlayer adhesion in these specimens.
4.3.2. Fracture mechanism
According to the SEM images of the fracture surfaces in Fig. 12 and
the qualitative comparison between the specimens, it can be seen that
the [− 45/45]5 specimen (Fig. 12f) has a very rough fracture surface,
which indicates proof of being the highest value of we [67]. On the other
hand, by observing the fracture surfaces of [0]5 (Figs. 13c and 12a) and
[90]5 (Figs. 13e and 12e) specimens, it can be seen that [0]5 specimen
has a very smooth fracture surface compared to [90]5 specimen without
any jagged area. This smoothness of the fracture surface is proof of the
lowest values of we for [0]5 specimen [68].
The Pull-out mechanism was seen for [0]5 lay-up (Fig. 14a), in which
a thin strand of filament was pulled out during tensile loading. This
mechanism contributes to the fracture toughness through wasted energy
to break and pull out the filament and ductile failure of the material
[69]. The fibrillation was due to continuous stretching and rupture of
the ligament between the cavities [6,70]. This mechanism caused
distortion at the fracture surface [64,69]. In Figs. 13e, 14b, 14c, and
14d, which are related to [90]5, [45]5, [− 45/45]5, [90/45]5 lay-ups,
respectively, a molten polymer with a fibrillated structure was observed.
Fig. 14e (at the 0◦ layer) and 14 g (at the 45◦ layer) show a large area
of micro-hills on the fracture surface. These micro-hills shows that the
layers are removed by pulling out, not by separating from the adjacent
layer. Fig. 14h also shows a large area of delamination and roughness on
the fracture surface, indicating that the sample underwent simultaneous
fracture inter-layer and intra-layer mode [61].
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Fig. 12. SEM photography of porosity and fracture surface of DENT for different lay-ups: a) [0]5, b) [0/90]5, c) [0/45]5, d) [90/45]5, e) [90]5, f) [− 45/45]5, g)
[45]5 and f) molded HIPS. Blue arrows indicate triangular air gaps.

13
S.A. Sajjadi et al. Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191

Fig. 13. SEM photography of fracture surface of DENT for different lay-ups: a) [− 45/45]5, b) [0/90]5, c) [0]5, d) [45]5, and e) [90]5. Yellow arrows indicate intera-
layer cavities and green arrows are Interlayer adhesion.

14
S.A. Sajjadi et al.
Fig. 14. SEM photography of fracture mechanisms for different lay-ups: a) [0]5, b) [45]5, c) [− 45/45]5, d) [90/45]5, e) [0]5, f) [90/0]5, g) [0/45]5, and h) [− 45/
45]5. Green arrows indicates interlayer adhesion.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the essential work of fracture (EWF) approach was
utilized to examine the fracture behavior of high impact polystyrene
(HIPS) processed by additive manufacturing, specifically by the material
extrusion technique to characterize fracture properties. The influence of
different raster angles and lay-up modes on the essential and non-
essential work of fracture parameters was investigated. 3D printed
DENT specimens were produced with eight different infill orientations
cases. The main conclusions derived from this research are:
• Self-similarity on the load-displacement curves and confirming the
plane stress condition by Sai Hill’s method indicated that the EWF
procedure was applicable.
15
Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191
• Results show that [0]5 and [0/90]5 lay-ups had the highest
(23.9598 MPa) and the lowest (15.8924 MPa) strength, respectively.
• Measurements for we show that the maximum and minimum value of
essential work of fracture belonged to [− 45/45]5 and [0]5 lay-ups
with values of 10.855 and 1.6338 KJ.m− 2, respectively.
• Measurements for βwp show that the highest and lowest value of non-
essential work of fracture belongs to [0]5 and [0/90]5 lay-ups with
values of 2.4357 and 0.4371 KJ.m− 3, respectively.
• By SEM imaging of the fracture surface of the specimens, we found
that the highest interlayer porosity (triangular air gaps) was for [0]5
lay-up, which also had the lowest value of we. The lowest interlayer
porosity was for [− 45/45]5 and [45]5 ones, which subsequently had
the highest value of we.
S.A. Sajjadi et al.
• In general, various failure mechanisms, including micro-hills,
fibrillated structures, and pull-out, can be seen in specimens pro­
cessed via material extrusion.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pouya Rajaee: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Methodology, Conceptualization. Faramarz Ashenai Ghasemi: Writing
– review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation,
Conceptualization. Mohammad Fasihi: Writing – review & editing,
Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization. Seyyed Ali
Sajjadi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Method­
ology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
All people who have made substantial contributions to the work
reported in the manuscript (e.g., technical help, writing and editing
assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for
authorship, are named in the Acknowledgements and have given us their
written permission to be named. If we have not included an Acknowl­
edgements, then that indicates that we have not received substantial
contributions from non-authors.
References
[1] R. Singh, R. Kumar, I. Farina, F. Colangelo, L. Feo, F. Fraternali, Multi-material
additive manufacturing of sustainable innovative materials and structurer, Polym
11 (2019) 62, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11010062.
[2] X. Wang, M. Jiang, Z. Zhou, J. Gou, D. Hui, 3D printing of polymer matrix
composites: a review and prospective, Compos. Part. B 110 (2017) 442–458,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.034.
[3] S. Berretta, R. Davies, Y.T. Shyng, Y. Wang, O. Ghita, Fused deposition modelling of
high temperature polymers:exploring CNT PEEK composites, Polym. Test. 63
(2017) 251–262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.08.024.
[4] R. Ghandriz, K. Hart, J. Li, Extended finite element method (XFEM) modeling of
fracture in additively manufactured polymers, Addit. Manuf. 31 (2020), 100945,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100945.
[5] H.E. Quinlan, T. Hasan, J. Jaddou, A.J. Hart, Industrial and consumer uses of
additive manufacturing: a discussion of capabilities, trajectories, and challenges,
J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (2017) 15, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12609.
[6] P. Verma, J. Ubaid, A. Schiffer, Essential work of fracture assessment of
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) processed via fused filament fabrication
additive manufacturing, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 113 (2021) 771–784, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06580-4.
[7] R. Kumar, R. Singh, On the 3D printing of recycled ABS, PLA, and HIPS
thermoplastics for structural applications, Psu. Res. Rev. 2 (2018) 115–137.
[8] A.M.C. De Souza, M.G. Cucchiara, A.V. Ereio, ABS/HIPS blends obtained from
WEEE: Influence processing conditions and composition, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 133
(2016) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1002/app.43831.
[9] S. Sharafi, M.H. Santare, J. Gerdes, S.G. Advani, A review of factors that influence
the fracture toughness of extrusion-based additively manufactured polymer and
polymer composites, Addit. Manuf. 38 (2021), 101830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2020.101830.
[10] F. Gorski, R. Wichniarek, W. Kuczko, A. Hamrol, Selection of fused deposition
modeling process parameters using finite element analysis and genetic algorithms,
J. Mult. Value Log. Soft. Comput. 32 (2019) 293–311.
[11] O.A. Mohamed, S.H. Masood, J.L. Bhowmik, M. Nikzad, J. Azadmanjiri, Effect of
process parameters on dynamic mechanical performance of FDM PC/ABS printed
parts through design of experiment, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 25 (2016) 2922–2935,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-016-2157-6.
[12] F. Górski, W. Kuczko, R. Wichniarek, A. Hamrol, Mechanical properties of
composite parts manufactured in FDM technology, Rapid Prototyp. J. 24 (2018)
1281–1287, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-11-2016-0197.
16
Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191
[13] M. Lorenzo-Bañuelos, A. Díaz, I.I. Cuesta, Influence of raster orientation on the
determination of fracture properties of polypropylene thin components produced
by additive manufacturing, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 107 (2020) 102–536,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2020.102536.
[14] A. Lanzotti, M. Grasso, G. Staiano, M. Martorelli, The impact of process parameters
on mechanical properties of parts fabricated in PLA with an open-source 3-D
printer, Rapid Prototyp. J. 21 (2015) 604–617, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-
2014-0135.
[15] T.J. Coogan, D.O. Kazmer, Prediction of interlayer strength in material extrusion
additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 35 (2020), 101368, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2020.101368.
[16] V.E. Kuznetsov, A.G. Tavitov, O.D. Urzhumtsev, M.V. Mikhalin, A.N. Solonin,
Design and fabrication of strong parts from poly (lactic acid) with a desktop 3D
printer: A case with interrupted shell, Polym 11 (2019) 760, https://doi.org/
10.3390/polym11050760.
[17] X. Wang, L. Zhao, J.Y.H. Fuh, H.P. Lee, Effect of porosity on mechanical properties
of 3D printed polymers: experiments and micromechanical modeling based on X-
ray computed tomography analysis, Polym 11 (7) (2019) 1154, https://doi.org/
10.3390/polym11071154.
[18] M. Fernandez-Vicente, W. Calle, S. Ferrandiz, A. Conejero, Effect of infill
parameters on tensile mechanical behavior in desktop 3d printing, 3D. Print. Addit.
Manuf. 3 (2016) 183–192, https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2015.0036.
[19] M. Hasanpour, M. Mehrabi Mazidi, M.K.Razavi Aghjeh, The effect of rubber
functionality on the phase morphology, mechanical performance and toughening
mechanisms of highly toughened PP/PA6/EPDM ternary blends, Polym. Test. 79
(2019), 106018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106018.
[20] C. Poisson, J.E. Fournier, M.F. Lacrampe, P. Krawczak, Essential work of fracture
(EWF) of multilayer films, Polym. Polym. Compos. (2006) 671–690, https://doi.
org/10.1177/096739110601400702.
[21] J. Wu, Y.W. Mai, The essential fracture work concept for toughness measurement
of ductile polymers, Polym. Eng. Sci. 36 (18) (1996) 2275–2288, https://doi.org/
10.1002/pen.10626.
[22] P. Rajaee, F. Ashenai Ghasemi, M. Fasihi, Comments on “Essential work of fracture
analysis for surface modified carbon fiber/polypropylene composites with different
interfacial adhesion”[Polymer Composites 41 (9)(2020): 3541–3551], Polym.
Compos. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.26470.
[23] T. Báránya, T. Czigánya, J. Karger-Kocsis, Application of the essential work of
fracture (EWF) concept for polymers, related blends and composites: a review,
Prog. Polym. Sci. 35 (10) (2010) 1257–1287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
progpolymsci.2010.07.001.
[24] B. Yin, Q. He, L. Ye, Effects of deposition speed and extrusion temperature on the
fusion between filaments in single-layer polymer films printed with FFF, Adv. Ind.
Eng. Polym. Res. 4 (4) (2021) 270–276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aiepr.2021.07.002.
[25] S.M.J. Razavi, F. Berto, directed energy deposition versus wrought Ti-6Al-4V: a
comparison of microstructure, fatigue behavior, and notch sensitivity, Adv. Eng.
Mater. 21 (2019), 1900220, https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201900220.
[26] S.M.J. Razavi, P. Ferro, F. Berto, J. Torgersen, Fatigue strength of blunt V-notched
specimens produced by selective laser melting of Ti-6Al-4V, Theor. Appl. Fract.
Mech. 97 (2018) 376–384, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TAFMEC.2017.06.021.
[27] W. Grellmann, B. Langer. Deformation and Fracture Behaviour of Polymer
Materials, first ed., Springer, Germany, 2017.
[28] B.P. Gearing, L. Anand, Notch-sensitive fracture of polycarbonate, Int. J. Solids
Struct. 41 (2004) 827–845, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSOLSTR.2003.09.058.
[29] K.B. Broberg, Crack-growth criteria and non-linear fracture mechanics, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids (1971), https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(71)90008-1.
[30] K.B. Broberg, On stable crack growth, J. Mech. Phys. Solids (1975), https://doi.
org/10.1016/0022-5096(75)90017-4.
[31] B. Cotterell, J.K. Reddel, The essential work of plane stress ductile fracture, Int. J.
Fract. 13 (3) (1977), https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00040143.
[32] B.H. Choi, M. Demirors, R.M. Patel, A.W. deGroot, K.W. Anderson, V. Juarez,
Evaluation of the tear properties of polyethylene blown films using the essential
work of fracture concept, Polym 51 (2010) 2732–2739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
polymer.2010.04.001.
[33] Y.W. Mai, B. Cotterell, R. Horlyck, G. Vigna, The essential work of plane stress
ductile fracture of linear polyethylenes, Polym. Eng. Sci. 27 (1987) 804, https://
doi.org/10.1002/pen.760271106.
[34] A.B. Martinez, J. Gamez-Perez, M. Sanchez-Soto, J.I. Velasco, O.O. Santana, M. Li
Maspoch, The Essential Work of Fracture (EWF) method – analyzing the post-
yielding fracture mechanics of polymers, Eng. Fail. Anal. 16 (8) (2009) 2604–2617,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.027.
[35] E. Clutton, Essential work of fracture, in: D.R. Moore, A. Pavan, J.G. Williams
(Eds.), Fracture Mechanics Testing Methods for Polymers, Adhesives, and
Composites, Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford, 2001, pp. 177–195.
[36] X. Zhang, L. Chen, T. Mulholland, T.A. Osswald, Effects of raster angle on the
mechanical properties of PLA and Al/PLA composite part produced by fused
deposition modeling, Polym. Adv. Technol (2019) 2122–2135, https://doi.org/
10.1002/pat.4645.
[37] Z. Liu, Q. Lei, S. Xing, Mechanical characteristics of wood, ceramic, metal and
carbon fiber-based PLA composites fabricated by FDM, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 8
(5) (2019) 3741–3751, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.06.034.
[38] M.H. Hsueh, C.J. Lai, C.F. Chung, S.H. Wang, W.C. Huang, C.Y. Pan, Y.S. Zeng, C.
H. Hsieh, Effect of printing parameters on the tensile properties of 3D-printed
polylactic acid (PLA) based on fused deposition modeling, Polym 13 (14) (2021),
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13142387.
S.A. Sajjadi et al.
[39] A. Garg, A. Bhattacharya, A. Batish, Chemical vapor treatment of ABS parts built by
FDM: analysis of surface finish and mechanical strength, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 89 (2017) 2175–2191, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9257-1.
[40] S.R. Rajpurohit, H.K. Dave, Effect of Raster Angle on Tensile Properties of PLA Part
Fabricated Using Fused Deposition Modeling Process, (COPEN). Chennai India, IIT
Madras. (2017) 103–106.
[41] J. Li, S. Yang, D. Li, V. Chalivendra, Numerical and experimental studies of
additively manufactured polymers for enhanced fracture properties, Eng. Fract.
Mech. 204 (2018) 557–569, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.11.001.
[42] S. Milenkovic, V. Slavkovic, C. Fragassa, N. Grujovic, N. Palic, F. Zivic, Effect of the
raster orientation on strength of the continuous fiber reinforced PVDF/PLA
composites, fabricated by hand-layup and fused deposition modeling, Compos.
Struct. 270 (2021), 114063, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114063.
[43] G. Taylor, S. Anandan, D. Murphy, M. Leu, K. Chandrashekhara, Fracture
toughness of additively manufactured ULTEM 1010, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 14 (3)
(2018) 277–283, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1558494.
[44] E.A. Papon, A. Haque, Fracture toughness of additively manufactured carbon fiber
reinforced composites, Addit. Manuf. 26 (2019) 41–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2018.12.010.
[45] C.M. Vicente, T.S. Martins, M. Leite, A. Ribeiro, L. Reis, Influence of fused
deposition modeling parameters on the mechanical properties of ABS parts, Polym.
Adv. Technol. 31 (3) (2020) 501–507, https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.4787.
[46] M. Dawoud, I. Taha, S.J. Ebeid, Mechanical behavior of ABS: an experimental
study using FDM, Inject. Mould. Tech., J. Manuf. Process 21 (2016) 39–45, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.11.002.
[47] W. Wu, P. Geng, G. Li, D. Zhao, H. Zhang, J. Zhao, Influence of layer thickness and
raster angle on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PEEK and a comparative
mechanical study between PEEK and ABS, Mater 8 (9) (2015) 5834–5846, https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma8095271.
[48] Z. Weng, J. Wang, T. Senthil, L. Wu, Mechanical and thermal properties of ABS/
montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling 3D printing,
Mater. Des. 102 (2016) 276–283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.04.045.
[49] M. Galeja, A. Hejna, P. Kosmela, A. Kulawik, Static and dynamic mechanical
properties of 3D printed ABS as a function of raster angle, Mater 13 (2020) 297,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020297.
[50] J. Kiendl, C. Gao, Controlling toughness and strength of FDM 3D-printed PLA
components through the raster layup, Compos. B. Eng. 180 (2020), 107562,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107562.
[51] M. Mazidi, M. Razavi Aghjeh, F. Abbasi, Evaluation of fracture toughness of ABS\
polymers via the essential work of fracture (EWF) method, J. Mater. Sci. 47 (2012)
6375–6386, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-012-6562-4.
[52] M. Rabbi, V. Chalivendra, D. Li, A. Novel, Approach to increase dynamic fracture
toughness of additively manufactured polymer, Exp. Mech. 59 (2019) 899–911,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-01900486-3.
[53] M. Günay, Modeling of tensile and bending strength for PLA parts produced by
FDM, Int. J. Print. Technol. Digit. Ind. 3 (2019) 204–211. 〈https://dergipark.org.
tr/en/pub/ij3dptdi/issue/51591/623331〉.
[54] N. Aliheidari, J. Christ, R. Tripuraneni, S. Nadimpalli, A. Ameli, Interlayer
adhesion and fracture resistance of polymers printed through melt extrusion
additive manufacturing process, Mater. Des. 156 (2018) 351, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2018.07.001.
[55] T.D. McLouth, J.V. Severino, P.M. Adams, D.N. Patel, R.J. Zaldivar, The impact of
print orientation and raster pattern on fracture toughness in additively
17
Additive Manufacturing 59 (2022) 103191
manufactured ABS, Addit. Manuf. 18 (2017) 103–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2017.09.003.
[56] J.P. Isaac, S. Dondeti, H.V. Tippur, Crack initiation and growth in additively
printed ABS: effect of print architecture studied using DIC, Addit. Manuf. 36
(2020), 101536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101536.
[57] S. Cicero, V. Martínez-Mata, A. Alonso-Estebanez, L. Castanon-Jano, B. Arroyo,
Analysis of notch effect in 3D-printed ABS fracture specimens containing U-
notches, Mater 13 (21) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13214716.
[58] A. Özen, D. Auhl, C. Völlmecke, J. Kiendl, B.E. Abali, Optimization of
manufacturing parameters and tensile specimen geometry for fused deposition
modeling (FDM) 3D-printed PETG, Mater 14 (10) (2021), https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma14102556.
[59] W. Yang, X. Bang-Hu, W. Shi, M. Zuo, L. Zhong-Ming, M.B. Yang, Essential work of
fracture of glass bead filled low density polyethylene, J. Mater. Sci. 40 (2005)
5323–5326, https://DOI:10.1007/s10853-005-4398-x.
[60] R.H. Kevin, E.D. Wetzel, Fracture behavior of additively manufactured acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene (ABS) materials, Eng. Fract. Mech. 177 (2017) 1–13, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.03.028.
[61] T.N.A.T. Rahim, A.M. Abdullah, H.M. Akil, D. Hohamad, Comparison of
mechanical properties for polyamide 12 composite-based biomaterials fabricated
by fused filament fabrication and injection molding, AIP Conf. Proc. 179 (2016)
1–8, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4968862.
[62] X. Zhang, L. Chen, T. Mulholland, T.A. Osswald, Characterization of mechanical
properties and fracture mode of PLA and copper/PLA composite part manufactured
by fused deposition modeling, SN Appl. Sci. 1 (2019) 616, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s42452-019-0639-5.
[63] M. Lay, N.L.N. Thajudin, Z.A. Abdul Hamid, A. Rusli, M.K. Abdullah, R.K. Shuib,
Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of PLA, ABS and nylon 6
fabricated using fused deposition modeling and injection molding, Compos. B. Eng.
176 (2019), 107341, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107341.
[64] M.D.J. Vega, J. Mead, C. Barry, Injection molding microstructured substrates from
rubber-containing polymers, Aip. Conf. Proc. 1779 (2016) 1–5, https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.4965463.
[65] M. Algarni, The influence of raster angle and moisture content on the mechanical
properties of PLA parts produced by fused deposition modeling, Polym 13 (2)
(2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13020237.
[66] E. Greenhalgh, Failure analysis and fractography of polymer composites, Elsevier,
2009.
[67] M.M. Mazidi, M.K.R. Aghjeh, Synergistic toughening effects of dispersed
components in PP/PA6/EPDM ternary blends; quantitative analysis of the fracture
toughness via the essential work of fracture (EWF) methodology, RSC Adv. 5 (58)
(2015) 47183–47198, https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA07193C.
[68] A. Chalabi Tehran, F. Heidari, T.N. Chakherlou, R. Najjar, Fracture toughness and
fractographic investigation of polybutylene terephthalate/thermoplastic
polyurethane binary blends reinforced by multi-walled carbon nanotubes using
essential work of fracture approach, J. Compos. Mater. 56 (5) (2022) 743–759,
https://doi.org/10.1177/00219983211061933.
[69] Y. Song, Y. Li, W. Song, K. Yee, K.Y. Lee, V.L. Tagarielli, Measurements of the
mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed PLA, Mater. Des. 123 (2017)
154–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.051.
[70] D. Yavas, Z. Zhang, Q. Liu, D. Wu, Fracture behavior of 3D printed carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer composites, Compos. Sci. Technol. 208 (2021), 108741,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.108741.