Virtual and Physical Prototyping

ISSN: 1745-2759 (Print) 1745-2767 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvpp20

Fracture toughness of additively manufactured

ULTEM 1010

Gregory Taylor, Sudharshan Anandan, David Murphy, Ming Leu & K.

Chandrashekhara

To cite this article: Gregory Taylor, Sudharshan Anandan, David Murphy, Ming Leu & K.
Chandrashekhara (2018): Fracture toughness of additively manufactured ULTEM 1010, Virtual and
Physical Prototyping, DOI: 10.1080/17452759.2018.1558494

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1558494

Published online: 18 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvpp20
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1558494

Fracture toughness of additively manufactured ULTEM 1010

Gregory Taylor, Sudharshan Anandan, David Murphy, Ming Leu and K. Chandrashekhara
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Intelligent Systems Center, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO,
USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

One of the polymer additive manufacturing processes commonly used today is fused deposition Received 28 October 2018
modelling (FDM). FDM is the process of manufacturing three-dimensional structure through the Accepted 9 December 2018
use of a layer-by-layer printing of the polymer filament. Due to the anisotropic nature of FDM
parts, the orientation of the rasters and the build orientation have an effect on the mechanical
properties of a part. This study evaluates the fracture toughness of FDM solid-build specimens
manufactured from Ultem 1010. The effects of build orientation and raster orientation were
investigated through the use of a full-factorial design of experiments. The fracture toughness
was obtained using single-edge notch bend test for a range of build orientations and rasters
typically used in the FDM process. The design of experiments uses the results of the single-edge
notch bend test to determine the significance the factors, build orientation and raster angle,
have on the response variable, conditional critical stress intensity factor. Ultem 1010 parts were
also microscopically examined to understand the primary failure mode around the rasters. The
primary results of this study include the relationship of the build parameters to each other and
to the fracture toughness of Ultem 1010.

1. Introduction
Over the last decade, additive manufacturing has
become a widely utilised method of manufacturing.
Additive manufacturing reduces the waste common in
more traditional subtractive techniques by manufactur-
ing parts in a layer-by-layer manner. Using a three-
dimensional CAD model of a proposed part additive
manufacturing builds each layer and continually stacking
additional layers until completion. One of the additive
manufacturing processes used today is Fused Deposition
Modeling (FDM). This process focuses on the extrusion of
plastics through a high temperatures nozzle to manufac-
ture the three-dimensional parts. Each layer is extruded a
solidified initially on a build surface or platform and then
on the preceding layer until completion. Often a support
material aids in the manufacturing to structurally
reinforce material that would otherwise collapse during
the build process.
Additive manufacturing and FDM has become a
common practice in industry today. Due to its popularity,
FDM has been discussed as a possibility for manufactur-
ing more structurally critical parts. Current research is
focused primarily on tensile, compressive, and flexural
behaviour of additively manufactured parts. Zaldivar
et al. (2017) investigated the effects of build orientation
on tensile properties, Poisson’s ratio, and coefficient of
thermal expansion of Ultem 9085. Motaparti et al.
(2017) observed flexural properties are dependent
upon build parameters through a series of flexural tests
and design of experiments. Taylor et al. (2016) created
a nonlinear material model through design of exper-
iments that investigated the effect of raster angle, air
gap, and wall/ cap thickness. Rayegani and Onwubolu
(2014) optimised process parameters for fused depo-
sition modelling by the use of group method for data
handling in order to achieve an improved functionality
of the additively manufactured part. Casavola et al.
(2016) used classical laminate theory typically seen in
composite structures to describe the mechanical behav-
iour of FDM parts. Sood, Ohdar, and Mahapatra (2010)
utilised a design of experiments to investigate how
build parameters affect the tensile, flexure, and impact
strength of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) manu-
factured with FDM. The fracture surface of the ABS
coupons after tensile testing was examined using scan-
ning electron microscopy to show filament pullout and
intralayer failure. Torrado-Perez, Roberson, and Wicker
(2014) also used scanning electron microscopy to
examine the fracture surface of ABS tensile specimens.

CONTACT K. Chandrashekhara chandra@mst.edu Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Intelligent Systems Center, Missouri University
of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65409, USA
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. TAYLOR ET AL.
While many researchers have focused tensile, com-
pressive, and flexural behaviour, other researches have
been investigating the fracture toughness of FDM pro-
duced parts. Torrado et al. (2015) has inserted ABS
material to analyse the altering of the mechanical prop-
erties and also using SEM to aid fractography of the frac-
ture surfaces. Xu and Guo (2018) has proposed a double
compliance method for measuring the fracture tough-
ness of composites which is simpler when compared to
the current ASTM standard. Torres et al. (2016) did
tensile and fracture testing on specimens, manufactured
by FDM with polylactic acid, for mechanical properties.
Through design of experiments the production variables
offer optimised properties depending on the tensile and
fracture-type loading. Young, Kessler, and Czabaj (2016)
applied a double cantilever beam test to compute inter-
layer fracture toughness for FDM manufactured unrein-
forced (ABS) and chopped carbon-fiber-reinforced ABS
samples. McLouth et al. (2017) found that the fracture
toughness of FDM manufactured ABS was altered most
significantly when the samples’ print orientations were
perpendicular to the respected crack plane. Song et al.
(2017) determined that the fracture toughness of PLA
specimens is increased when manufactured by FDM
compared to homogeneous injection moulding.
Tandon et al. (2017) varied the air gap of FDM coupons
to find a corresponding relationship with interlaminar
fracture toughness through compact tension testing.
García-Guzmán et al. (2018) investigated the idea of
nature-inspired geometric structured interfaces having
positive effects on fractured properties. The study specifi-
cally tested trapezoidal interfaces. Gardan, Makke, and
Recho (2018) present that the FDM sample filaments
direction can lead to a 30% difference in fracture tough-
ness, concluding that the filaments directions should
follow the principal direction of stress in the sample. Ali-
heidari et al. (2017) performed a double cantilever beam
fracture toughness test on ABS specimens to study the
interlayer fracture resistance. A finite element model
was then used to analyse the fracture resistance from
the experimental results.
In the current study, the effects of build orientation
and raster angle on fracture toughness were investi-
gated through the use of a full-factorial experimental
design. Single-edge notch bend tests were performed
to study the conditional stress intensity factor for frac-
ture toughness. A design of experiments examined
the effect the factors, build orientation and raster
angle, had on the response, conditional critical stress
intensity factor (KIQ). Additionally, a microscopic evalu-
ation of the microstructure was performed to analyse
the failure mechanism of the build parameters. The
primary results of this study include the relationship of
the build parameters and the fracture toughness of
Ultem 1010.
2. Experimental methodology
Methodology for this study included manufacturing of
samples to testing specifications. Samples then under-
went post-processing after fabrication in order to
follow ASTM D5045. Testing was conducted on all
samples according to the testing standards.
2.1. Specifications and design of experiments for
fracture toughness testing
Samples were fabricated according to ASTM D-5045
Standard Test Methods for Plane-Strain Fracture Tough-
ness and Strain Energy Release Rate of Plastic Materials
(ASTM D5045-14). The effect of build orientation and
raster angle on the fracture toughness was evaluated
using a full-factorial design of experiments (Table 1).
These two build parameters are the independent vari-
able or factors while the response is the crack initiation
fracture toughness (KIQ).
The KIQ is considered due to the nature of additive
manufactured samples and can be influenced by a com-
bination of both material and build design. The build
orientation factor has three levels: XYZ, XZY, and ZXY
(ASTM ISO/ASTM52921-13). The raster angle consists
factor has four levels, 0°/90°, 45°/−45°, all 0°, and all
90°. This angle is measured from the x-axis on the x-y
build plane. In total, 60 total samples were manufactured
for the twelve build combinations with five replications
each.
For the parameters, the build orientation is the direc-
tion the part is printed within the FDM machine build
space. For a typical FDM machine, the x-axis runs parallel
to the front of the machine, the y-axis runs perpendicular
to the x-axis from machine front to machine back, the z-
axis runs perpendicular to x-axis and y-axis as well as
normal to the layers of the parts. All raster angles are
measured as the angle between the internal wall and
the x-axis. Constant build parameters include: raster
width (0.508 mm), contour width (0.508 mm), and air
Table 1. Full-factorial design of experiments.
Levels
Factors A B C D
Build orientation XYZ XZY ZXY –
Raster angle 0°/90° 45°/−45° All 0° All 90°
Constants
Raster width 0.508 mm (0.02 in.)
Contour width 0.508 mm (0.02 in.)
Air gap 0 mm (0 in.)

gap (0 mm). Finished samples for both orientations are
shown below in Figure 1.
2.2. Fabrication of Ultem 1010 specimens with the
FDM process
The fracture toughness samples were fabricated with
Ultem 1010 using a Fortus 400mc machine (Stratasys,
USA) at Missouri University of Science and Technology.
The procedure for the fabrication of the FDM parts
involves the following:
(1) Pre-processing: A three-dimensional models of the
coupons were created in CAD software (SOLID-
WORKS 2017) with overall dimensions of 88 mm ×
20 mm × 10 mm. The model was exported as a
Stereo Lithography (STL) file to Stratasys Insight 9.1
software. The Insight software creates the build tool-
path for each of the build orientations and specifies
the build parameters for the FDM coupons. An STL
file is created for each build combination and pro-
vided to the FDM machine for fabrication of the frac-
ture toughness coupons.
(2) Fabrication: The Fortus 400mc machine fabricated
the FDM coupons for each build combination
through the extrusion of Ultem 1010 filament via a
Figure 1. Build orientation of samples.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 3
heated nozzle in a layer-by-layer manner. The
machine used a T16 tip for extruding the Ultem
1010 material and a T14 tip for extruding the
Ultem 1010 support material. All samples were fabri-
cated with a layer thickness of 0.010 in.
(3) Post-processing: After fabrication, the support
material was mechanically removed from the
coupons.
2.3. Fracture toughness testing procedure
Fracture toughness tests were conducted according to
the guidelines in ASTM 5045. The single-edge notch
bend (SENB) configuration was selected in this study.
Specimens were manufactured with a width of 20 mm,
thickness of 10 mm, and a length of 88 mm (Figure 2).
A notch was pre-built into the specimen geometry with
crack added after manufacturing.
A crack needs to be cut onto the specimen before
testing. The required crack length for the specimen
dimensions chosen in this study is 9–13 mm calculated
according to Equation (1).

2
KIQ
B, a, (W − a) . 2.5 (1)
sy
where a is initial crack length, W is specim width and B
is specimen thickness. KIQ in this equation is an esti-
mate of fracture toughness which was obtained by
preliminary testing. sy . is the yield strength of addi-
tively manufactured Ultem 1010 (ASTM D5045-14).
The yield strength was determined from tension
tests conducted in a previous study (Taylor et al.
2018).
The crack was initially extended using a jeweller’s saw,
to a length of ∼9–11 mm. A natural crack was formed by
placing a razor blade into the cut crack and tapping to
form the final length of the crack. This was performed
according to ASTM D5045-14 Section 7.4.1. The initial
crack length for each sample was measured using a
pair of calipers with a least count of 0.01 mm before
testing. The specimen was loaded using a three-point
bending test fixture with a loading span of 80 mm as
shown in Figure 3.
Specimens were loaded until failure at a rate of
0.05 in/min. Using the maximum load required to
Figure 2. Specimen dimensions for fracture toughness test.
4 G. TAYLOR ET AL.
Figure 3. Test setup for the SENB fracture toughness test.
propagate the crack, the crack initiation fracture tough-
ness or KIQ was calculated according to Equation (2).
Pm f (a/W)
KIQ =
B(W)(1/2)
where Pm is the load required for crack propagation, a is
initial crack length, W is specimen width and B is speci-
men thickness. The term, f(a/W ) is a calibration factor,
defined in Equation (3):
 
(1/2) 1.99 − x(1 − x)(2.15 − 3.93x + 2.7x
2
f (x) = 6x
(1 + 2x)(1 − x)(3/2)
(3)
where x stands for (a/W ).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Fracture toughness results
For each combination of build parameters, five fracture
toughness tests were performed, and the load required
for crack propagation of the samples was found.
Samples either fractured fully into two pieces or partially
fractured (Figure 4). Most partially fractured samples had
a ZXY build orientation. The ZXY build orientation
samples’ fracture toughness tests are dominated by a
Figure 4. (a) Partial fracture of an Ultem 1010 sample, (b) Complete fracture of an Ultem 1010 sample.
Figure 5. Average KIQ of varying build orientation and raster
angles for Ultem 1010 samples.
weak interlayer bond preventing crack growth. Cracks
easily grow through this region but are slow at the
outer wall of the samples. From the yield stress, the KIQ
(2) was calculated from Equation (2) for each sample and
tabulated into average results show in Figure 5.
From the results shown in Figure 5, the highest critical
stress intensity factor for any sample occurred for the
XZY build orientation and all 0° raster angle. This result
is expected due to the build layers oriented normal to
the intended propagation of the crack during fracture,
thus increasing the fracture toughness. In both XYZ
and XZY build orientations, the results demonstrated
similar trends. However, the ZXY build orientation
showed a different trend due to the nature of the crack
growth in the samples. The ZXY build orientation
samples are dominated by an interlayer bond which is
weaker than the failure of the rasters or the intralayer
bonding of the XYZ and XZY build orientations.
3.2. Design of experiments results
A full-factorial design of experiments was performed with
the SENB results to determine if the response variable, KIQ,
is being significantly affected by any of the independent
variables, build orientation and raster angle. To determine
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 5

Table 2. Analysis of variance. orientation have the most significant role with this
Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F ratio build orientation. The XZY showed similar results and
Model 11 53.195 4.836 52.966 similar methods of failure. The ZXY samples were not
Error 43 3.926 0.091 p-value
C. Total 54 57.121 – <.0001
evaluated as these samples are dominated entirely by
interlayer bonding.
The fracture toughness of a sample with all 0° raster
Table 3. Build parameter effects table. angle and XYZ build orientation is shown in Figure 6(a).
Sum of The rasters are oriented perpendicular to the direction
Source Nparm DF squares F Ratio p-value of crack propagation. Under continued loading, failure
Raster angle 3 3 5.372 19.614 <.0001 occurs due to failure of individual rasters in the speci-
Build orientation 2 2 43.437 237.878 <.0001
Raster angle*Build 6 6 3.592 6.558 <.0001 men. Specimens manufactured with all 90° build orien-
orientation tation have the less fracture toughness (Figure 6(b)).
The failure in these specimens is dominated by the intra-
the significance, the p-value must be less than .05, or in other layer bond region (raster bond region) but is also
words, the model, interaction, or main effect is significant affected by the interlayer bond region. Failure in
with 95% confidence. The DOE was analysed with JMP 12 samples manufactured with 0°/90° raster angle is a com-
statistical software, and the results are shown in Tables 2 bination of the above-mentioned failure modes (Figure 7
and 3. From the analysis of variance (ANOVA) shown in (a)). Even though these samples have some layers
Table 2, the model was found to be significant (p-value oriented perpendicular to the direction of crack propa-
less than .0001), and therefore, the response, KIQ, changes gation, the orientation of the raster angles did not
with one or more variables or combinations of variables. result in any significant increase in fracture toughness.
From the effects table (Table 3), the interaction (Build Orien- Figure 7(b) shows the failure propagation in samples
tation*Raster Angle) between the build orientation and with 45°/−45° raster angle. Failure occurs mainly due to
raster angle was looked at for significance, and the combi- a combination of raster failure and intralayer failure,
nation of the two variables showed significance with the similar to 0°/90° raster angle specimens. Due to the
p-value less than .05. Finally, the two main effects, build raster angles lying more optimally to oppose the direc-
orientation and raster angle, were not evaluated due to tion of crack propagation, the strength of the samples
the significance of the interaction of the build orientation with 45°/−45° raster angle was higher than the 0°/90°
and raster angle. Examining Figure 5, the trend of KIQ for raster angle specimens. While the fracture toughness of
both XYZ and XZY build orientations is similar for the these samples is lower than the all 0° raster angle speci-
same raster angles but differs from the ZXY orientation mens, it is much higher than the specimens manufac-
and its raster angles. tured using all 90° build orientation.
For practical applications, samples manufactured
using all 0° or 90° build orientations can exhibit orthotro-
pic properties, with reduced mechanical strength along
3.3. Microstructure evaluation
the direction perpendicular to the rasters. Previous
The microstructure of the samples was evaluated using a works have demonstrated that tensile and flexural
HiROX optical microscope model KH-8700. The XYZ build strength of FDM manufactured specimens also follows
orientation was evaluated as the rasters and build a similar trend. To obtain a good combination of

Figure 6. (a) Samples with all 0° rasters, (b) Samples with all 90° rasters.
6 G. TAYLOR ET AL.
Figure 7. (a) Samples with 0°/90° rasters, (b) Samples with 45°/-45° rasters.
mechanical strength and fracture toughness, a 45°/−45°
build orientation may be recommended, where the
rasters are oriented at 45° to the expected direction of
crack propagation. The ZXY build orientation samples
also show that the interlayer bonding is much weaker
than the individual raster failure or intralayer bonding.
Therefore, avoiding crack growth that is dominated by
interlayer bonding is highly recommended.
4. Conclusions
The Ultem 1010 fracture toughness coupons with varying
build orientation and raster angle were manufactured
with fused deposition modelling. The samples were
tested for conditional critical stress intensity factor using
single-edge notch bend test. A full-factorial design of
experiments was conducted, and the interaction
between build orientation and raster angle did not signifi-
cantly affect the conditional critical stress intensity factor.
Further, only the raster angle, not build direction, showed
significance for affecting the conditional critical stress
intensity factor. The microstructures of the samples
were evaluated to determine the causes of the failure.
Samples failed due to the failure of the individual
rasters, interlayer bonding, intralayer bonding, or combi-
nation of failure methods. The failure of samples with the
XYZ or XZY build orientations were dominated by the
failure of the individual rasters and interlayer bonding
while the failure of samples with the ZXY build orientation
were dominated by interlayer bonding.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Leah Mason, Missouri Univer-
sity of Science and Technology, for her effort in manufacturing
the samples.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Gregory Taylor is a Graduate Research Assistant in the Depart-
ment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Missouri
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
Sudharshan Anandan is a Graduate Research Assistant in the
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Mis-
souri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
David Murphy is a Graduate Research Assistant in the Depart-
ment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Missouri
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
Ming Leu is a Keith and Pat Bailey Distinguished Professor in the
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and
Director of Intelligent Systems Center at Missouri University
of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
K. Chandrashekhara is a Curators’ Distinguished Professor in
the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at
Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri,
USA.
References
Aliheidari, N., R. Tripuraneni, A. Ameli, and S. Nadimpalli. 2017.
“Fracture Resistance Measurement of Fused Deposition
Modeling 3D Printed Polymers.” Polymer Testing 60: 94–101.
ASTM D5045-14, Standard Test Methods for Plane-Strain
Fracture Toughness and Strain Energy Release Rate of
Plastic Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2014, www.astm.org.
ASTM ISO/ASTM52921-13, Standard Terminology for Additive
Manufacturing-Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
Casavola, C., A. Cazzato, V. Moramarco, and C. Pappalettere.
2016. “Orthotropic Mechanical Properties of Fused
Deposition Modelling Parts Described by Classical
Laminate Theory.” Materials and Design 90: 453–458.
García-Guzmán, L., L. Távara, J. Reinoso, J. Justo, and F. París.
2018. “Fracture Resistance of 3D Printed Adhesively
Bonded DCB Composite Specimens Using Structured
Interfaces: Experimental and Theoretical Study.” Composite
Structures 188: 173–184.
Gardan, J., A. Makke, and N. Recho. 2018. “Improving the
Fracture Toughness of 3D Printed Thermoplastic Polymers
by Fused Deposition Modeling.” International Journal of
Fracture 210 (1–2): 1–15.

McLouth, T. D., J. V. Severino, P. M. Adams, D. N. Patel, and R. J.
Zaldivar. 2017. “The Impact of Print Orientation and Raster
Pattern on Fracture Toughness in Additively Manufactured
ABS.” Additive Manufacturing 18: 103–109.
Motaparti, K. P., G. Taylor, M. C. Leu, K. Chandrashekhara, J.
Castle, and M. Matlack. 2017. “Experimental Investigation of
Effects of Build Parameters on Flexural Properties in Fused
Deposition Modelling Parts.” Virtual and Physical
Prototyping 12 (3): 207–220.
Rayegani, F., and G. C. Onwubolu. 2014. “Fused Deposition
Modeling (FDM) Process Parameter Prediction and
Optimization Using Group Method for Data Handling
(GMDH) and Differential Evolution (DE).” The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 73: 509–519.
Song, Y., Y. Li, W. Song, K. Yee, K.-Y. Lee, and V. L. Tagarielli. 2017.
“Measurements of the Mechanical Response of Unidirectional
3D-Printed PLA.” Materials and Design 123: 154–164.
Sood, A. K., R. K. Ohdar, and S. S. Mahapatra. 2010. “Parametric
Appraisal of Mechanical Property of Fused Deposition
Modelling Processed Parts. Materials and Design 31 (1):
287–295.
Tandon, G. P., T. J. Whitney, R. Gerzeski, H. Koerner, and J. Baur.
2017. “Process Parameter Effects On Interlaminar Fracture
Toughness of FDM Printed Coupons.” Conference
Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics
Series, 7, 63–71, 2017.
Taylor, G., X. Wang, L. Mason, M. Leu, and K. Chandrashekhara.
2016. “Investigation of Ultem 1010 FDM Sparse-Build Parts
Using Design of Experiments and Numerical Simulation.” in
Proceedings of the Composites and Advanced Materials
Expo, Anaheim, CA, September 26–29, 2016.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 7
Taylor, G., X. Wang, L. Mason, M. Leu, K. Chandrashekhara, T.
Schniepp, and R. Jones. 2018. “Flexural Behavior of
Additively Manufactured Ultem 1010: Experiment and
Simulation.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 24 (6): 1003–1011.
Torrado, A. R., C. M. Shemelya, J. D. English, Y. Lin, R. B. Wicker,
and D. A. Roberson. 2015. “Characterizing the Effect of
Additives to ABS on the Mechanical Property Anisotropy of
Specimens Fabricated by Material Extrusion 3D Printing.”
Additive Manufacturing 6: 16–29.
Torrado-Perez, A. R., D. A., Roberson, and R. B. Wicker. 2014.
“Fracture Surface Analysis of 3D-Printed Tensile Specimens
of Novel ABS-Based Materials.” Journal of Failure Analysis
and Prevention 14 (3): 343–353.
Torres, J., M. Cole, A. Owji, Z. DeMastry, and A. P. Gordon. 2016.
“An Approach for Mechanical Property Optimization of
Fused Deposition Modeling with Polylactic Acid via Design
of Experiments.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 22 (2): 387–404.
Xu, W., and Z. Z. Guo. 2018. “A Simple Method for Determining
the Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Composite
Without Measuring the Growing Crack Length.” Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 191: 476–485.
Young, D., J. Kessler, and M. Czabaj. 2016. “Interlayer Fracture
Toughness of Additively Manufactured Unreinforced and
Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene.”
Proceedings of the American Society for Composites – 31st
Technical Conference, ASC.
Zaldivar, R. J., D. B. Witkin, T. McLouth, D. N. Patel, K. Schmitt,
and J. P. Nokes. 2017. “Influence of Processing and
Orientation Print Effects on the Mechanical and Thermal
Behavior of 3D-Printed ULTEM® 9085 Material.” Additive
Manufacturing 13: 71–80.