Fuse Deposition Modeling

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/2415229
Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS
Article in Rapid Prototyping Journal · October 2002

DOI: 10.1108/13552540210441166 · Source: CiteSeer
CITATIONS READS
565 2,287
6 authors, including:
Sung-Hoon Ahn Dan Odell

Seoul National University
27 PUBLICATIONS 1,027 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Shad Roundy
University of Utah
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Energy Harvesting for Wearables View project
Nano/Micro Robot and Actuator View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sung-Hoon Ahn on 29 December 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1. Introduction
Anisotropic material
Recent advances in the fields of Computer
properties of fused Aided Design (CAD) and Rapid Prototyping
deposition modeling (RP) have given designers the tools to rapidly
generate an initial prototype from concept.
ABS There are currently several different RP
technologies available, each with its own
Sung-Hoon Ahn unique set of competencies and limitations.
Michael Montero The Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)
process from Stratasys produces prototype
Dan Odell parts out of ABS plastic. FDM deposits a
Shad Roundy and molten filament of ABS in a criss-cross
manner resulting in direction dependant, or
Paul K. Wright
anisotropic, material properties. This paper
seeks to characterize some of the anisotropic
The authors
properties of ABS parts produced by the
Sung-Hoon Ahn is at the Gyeongsang National FDM process.
Downloaded by Seoul National University At 16:28 28 December 2017 (PT)
University, Jinju, Korea 660-701 The FDM process works as follows. First,
Michael Montero, Dan Odell, Shad Roundy and a three dimensional solid model must be
Paul K. Wright are at the University of California, created. This can be accomplished in many
Berkeley, California 94710, USA of the commonly available CAD packages.
The model is then exported to the FDM
Keywords Quickslicee software using the
Rapid prototyping, Anisotropy, Fused deposition modeling stereolithography (STL) format. This format
tessellates the part into a set of triangles. The
Abstract advantage of the STL format is that most
Rapid Prototyping (RP) technologies provide the ability to
CAD systems support it, and it simplifies the
fabricate initial prototypes from various model materials. part geometry by reducing it to its most basic
Stratasys Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is a typical RP components. The disadvantage is that the part
process that can fabricate prototypes out of ABS plastic. To loses some resolution, because only triangles,
predict the mechanical behavior of FDM parts, it is critical to
understand the material properties of the raw FDM process and not true arcs, splines, etc., now represent
material, and the effect that FDM build parameters have on the geometry (Wright, 2001). However, the
anisotropic material properties. This paper characterizes the errors introduced by these approximations are
properties of ABS parts fabricated by the FDM 1650. Using a
acceptable as long as they are less than the
Design of Experiment (DOE) approach, the process
parameters of FDM, such as raster orientation, air gap, bead inaccuracy inherent in the manufacturing
width, color, and model temperature were examined. Tensile process.
strengths and compressive strengths of directionally Once the STL file has been exported to
fabricated specimens were measured and compared with
injection molded FDM ABS P400 material. For the FDM parts
Quickslicee, it is horizontally sliced into
made with a 0.003 inch overlap between roads, the typical many thin sections. These sections represent
tensile strength ranged between 65 and 72 percent of the the two-dimensional contours that the FDM
strength of injection molded ABS P400. The compressive
process will generate which, when stacked
strength ranged from 80 to 90 percent of the injection molded
FDM ABS. Several build rules for designing FDM parts were upon one another, will closely resemble the
formulated based on experimental results. original three-dimensional part. This
sectioning approach is common to all
Electronic access currently available RP processes. The
The research register for this journal is available at software then uses this information to
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters generate the process plan that controls the
FDM machine’s hardware (Figure 1).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is In the physical process of fabrication, an
available at ABS filament is fed through a heating element
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2546.htm and becomes semi-molten. The filament is
Authors thank Seunghwa Kim, Hongkyung Lee,

Rapid Prototyping
Volume 8 · Number 4 · 2002 · pp. 248 –257
and Jaeil Lee for their assistance in the experiment.
q MCB UP Limited · ISSN 1355-2546 This work was partially supported by the Brain
DOI 10.1108/13552540210441166 Korea 21 Project.
248
Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS Rapid Prototyping
Sung-Hoon Ahn et al. Volume 8 · Number 4 · 2002 · 248–257
Figure 1 Fused deposition modeling process inch) to 1 mm (0.0396 inch) for the FDM
1650 machine.
Air gap: air gap is the space between the
beads of FDM material. The default is zero,
meaning that the beads just touch. It can be
modified to leave a positive gap, which means
that the beads of material do not touch. The
positive gap results in a loosely packed
structure that builds rapidly. The air gap value
can also be modified to leave a negative gap,
meaning that two beads partially occupy the
same space. This results in a dense structure,
which requires a longer build time.
Model build temperature: this parameter
refers to the temperature of the heating
then fed through a nozzle and deposited onto element for the model material. It controls the
the partially constructed part. Since the viscosity of molten material that is extruded
from the nozzle.
material is extruded in a semi-molten state,

the newly deposited material fuses with Raster orientation: refers to the direction of
the beads of material (roads) relative to the
adjacent material that has already been
loading of the part.
deposited. The head then moves around in
Color: FDM P400 ABS material is available
the X – Y plane and deposits material
in a variety of colors: white, blue, black,
according to the part geometry. The platform
yellow, green, and red.
holding the part then moves vertically in the
The following process parameters were
Z plane to begin depositing a new layer on top
neglected: envelope temperature (the
of the previous one. After a period of time,
temperature of the air around the part), slice
usually several hours, the head will have
height (which is similar to bead width in the
deposited a full physical representation of the
vertical direction), and nozzle diameter (the
original CAD file.
width of the hole through which the material
The FDM machine possesses a second
extrudes). These parameters seemed to be
nozzle that extrudes support material and
either duplicates of the selected parameters,
builds support for any structure that has an
or did not seem to have a relevant connection
overhang angle of less than 458 from
to the final material properties.
horizontal as a default. If the angle is less than
The envelope temperature appeared to
458, more than one-half of one bead is
have an insignificant effect on past parts
overhanging the contour below it, and
prototyped with the FDM machine.
therefore is likely to fall.
Furthermore, the temperature in the envelope
The FDM process produces parts with
tends to fluctuate several degree Celsius
unique characteristics. The machine deposits
during a build, making precise control of this
material in a directional way that results in
variable difficult. The temperature may also
parts with anisotropic behavior. Experiments
vary in different locations in the build volume,
were performed in which the effect of several
increasing the control difficulty.
process parameters on the mechanical
Slice height is the thickness of each layer
behavior of FDM parts was examined.
measured in the vertical or Z direction.
Varying the slice height would most likely have
the same effect as varying the bead width of
2. Build parameter considerations the ABS plastic. Since an individual bead of
the material is homogenous, varying the
The first step in the experiment was to identify geometry of the bead in one dimension should
the process control parameters that were likely have the same effect as modifying it in the
to affect the properties of FDM parts. The other dimension, causing a redundancy
selected parameters are listed below. between this parameter and bead width. One
Bead width: bead width is the thickness of factor that could affect this assumption is the
the bead (or road) that the FDM nozzle fact that material is likely to have cooled more
deposits. It can vary from 0.3 mm (0.012 thoroughly between layers than between
249
roads, potentially affecting the fusion of the Figure 3 Premature shear failure of ASTM D638 standard test specimens
plastic. with longitudinal roads
Similarly, the nozzle diameter was assumed
to primarily affect the geometry of the bead.
Since bead geometry was already being
altered via road width (which is controlled by
the flow rate of material through the nozzle),
altering the nozzle diameter seemed to
duplicate the testing. Effecting a nozzle
change, which requires a physical transfer and
re-calibration for every change, is much more
time consuming than changing road width,
which is easily modified in software.
3. Experiment setup
A trial run was performed in which a series of

samples were built on the FDM machine by

modifying the toolpaths in the Quickslice
software (FDM, 1998). Views of parts with remained intact (Figure 3). As an attempt to
the toolpaths (or roads) from Quickslice are remedy this, offset contours that followed the
shown in Figure 2. An Instronw 8872 load perimeter of the sample were used to relieve
frame with 25 kN load cell was used to load
the stress concentrations. However, this
the test samples in tension.
approach caused stress-concentrating gaps in
The trial run samples were made according
the center of the sample, as well as areas where
to the ASTM D638 (ASTM, 1997), type I
the roads were no longer in pure tension,
standard. However, the geometry of these
defeating the intent of the D638 standard.
specimens revealed problems. As shown in
These samples tended to fail prematurely at
Figures 3 and 4, the ASTM D638 shape
these areas of multi-state stress (Figure 4).
added complications to the loading of the
parts that caused them to fail prematurely. In response to these complications, another
These complications included large stress specimen geometry, ASTM D3039 (ASTM,
concentrations caused by the termination of 1976) was adapted for the tensile test coupon.
the longitudinal roads used to approximate The specimen had size of 229 mm £
the large radii. These specimens failed 25:4 mm £ 3:3 mm: The loading rate of the
prematurely by shearing at the stress test was 2 mm/min. The load and strain data
concentrations, while the rest of the sample for each sample was collected as it was loaded.
Figure 2 Quickslice SML file showing samples with bead width, air gap, and
raster orientation variation Figure 4 Premature shear failure of ASTM D638 standard test specimens
with offset contours
250
4. Design of experiment Table I Variable symbols and level settings

Levels
The goal of the experiment was to determine
Variable Symbol Low(2) High(1 )
the effect of changing selected design and
process variables on the tensile strength of the Air gap (inch/mm) A 0.0/0.0 2 0.002/20.0508
FDM test specimens. As mentioned earlier, Road width (inch/mm) B 0.02/0.508 0.0396/1.00
the variables selected for this experiment were Model temperature (8C) C 270 280
chosen from a larger set based on the ABS color D Blue White
experience and knowledge of the researchers. Orientation of rasters E Transverse Axial
Figure 5 shows a more complete set of
variables and the domain or classification
under which each one falls. derive the effect estimates, but they also help
The five variables selected came from three in setting the appropriate test conditions or
different classifications: unprocessed ABS treatments for the design matrix. Since the
material, FDM build specifications, and generator is E ¼ ABCD; the coded levels for
FDM environment. The five variables are air parameter E, or column E will be defined by
gap, bead width, model temperature, ABS the product of coded units (þ 1 and 2 1) of
color, and raster orientation. Among the five columns A, B, C, and D (See Figure 6a). With
variables, one variable is qualitative (ABS only 16 test conditions, it was decided to
color) whereas the remaining four are replicate each one in order to calculate an
quantitative parameters. The next step in estimate of the standard error within the
setting up the DOE was to determine the experiment. The final design contains a total
resolution for the experiment and the number of 32 test specimens, which is an advantage
of levels for each variable (Wu and Hamada, over a full factorial design (25) that contains
2000 and Box et al., 1978). the same number of runs but lacks the
A linear relationship between the response estimate of error. Figure 6b shows that
variables A (air gap) and E (raster) had a
(tensile strength) and the five experiment
significant effect on the tensile strength
variables was expected (see Table I). For this
response. More details of the experimental
reason, each parameter requires only two
design and analysis of the build parameters of
levels, one set high (þ 1), and one set low
FDM material can be found in the authors’
(2 1). In order to set the appropriate levels,
earlier work (Montero et al., 2001).
preliminary tests were conducted for each
variable to define its range. Each variable was
varied independently, and the tensile strength
was measured. The results of these 5. Injection molded ABS
preliminary tests provided the settings for the
In order to measure the reference strength of
levels of each parameter.
the ABS P400 material, tensile and
All main effects and multi-factor
compression specimens were fabricated by
interaction effects were multiplied by the
injection molding. This process yields much
defining relation to reveal the confounding
more isotropic parts than the FDM process.
terms within each effect estimate. Not only
The same material was used for specimens
does the generator and defining relation help
produced by both FDM and injection molding.
First, aluminum molds for tensile and
Figure 5 Fishbone diagram of potential factors influencing tensile strength
compression specimens were milled on a
three-axis CNC machine. The dimensions of
the mold cavity for the tensile specimen were
the same as those of the specimen described
in the Experiment Setup section ð229 mm £
25:4 mm £ 3:3 mmÞ: The shrinkage of the
molded ABS was not considered because the
reduced cross section would be normalized to
the actual cross sectional area for strength
values. The dimensions of the compression
specimens were 25.4 mm (1 inch) in length
and 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) in diameter according
to ASTM D695 (ASTM, 1996).
251
Figure 6 Test matrix and plot of tensile strength (MPa) versus main effects (Montero et al., 2001)
The injection molded samples were created by specimen, three to five replications were
cutting strands of ABS P400 into 3– 5 mm fabricated and tested. The DOE showed that
long pieces for use in the Morgan Press G- air gap and raster orientation were the only
100T injection molding machine (Figure 7). significant effects. Therefore, the effect of
The nozzle temperature of the injection press these two variables on the tensile strength of
was 2708C, the mold preheat temperature was specimens was considered more closely.
1208C, the clamping force was 16,000 lbf
(71 kN), and the injection pressure was
6.1 Tensile tests
6,000 psi (41 MPa). These injection
Each FDM specimen consisted of 12 layers
parameters for injection molding were the
with various raster orientations. For example,
typical values applied for ABS plastic using
the axial specimen had 12 layers in the zero
this machine.
(loading) direction [08]12, and the criss-cross
specimen had six repetitions of a 458 layer
6. Results followed by a 2 458 layer [458/2 458]6.
Default FDM parts were made with a criss-
Dozens of specimens were produced by FDM cross raster in which the orientation of the
for comparison with the samples produced by beads alternates from þ 458 to 2 458 from
injection molding. For each type of the layer to layer. Some criss-cross raster
Figure 7 Process of fabricating tensile and compression specimens by injection molding of chopped FDM material
252
specimens were built and tested in addition to The [458/2 458] raster orientation is of
the main factorial experiment. particular interest as the Quickslice software
Figure 8 shows the resulting tensile defaults to this raster. This orientation
strength values for the specimens with zero air could be looked at as a [08/908] orientation if
gap. The injection molded ABS P400 failed at the part were rotated 458. For these two
26 MPa, and the four FDM specimens failed general cases, the strength ranged between
between 10 and 73 percent of the injection 65 and 72 percent of the injection molded
molded P400’s strength, depending on raster P400.
orientation. The failure modes of these specimens are
Figure 9 shows the effect of a negative shown in Figure 10. All specimens failed in
(2 0.003) air gap, which makes the specimen transverse direction except the criss-cross
more dense and strong. Although the strength specimen, which failed along the 458 line. The
of the axial specimens was not increased much failure modes for specimens with zero air gap
with a negative air gap, other FDM specimens were identical to those with 2 0.003 air gap.
exhibited a large increase in tensile strength. The relationship between failure loads and
Figure 8 Tensile strength of specimens with various raster (zero air gap) compared with injection molded ABS P400
Figure 9 Tensile strength specimens with various raster (20.003 inch air gap) compared with injection molded ABS P400
253
Figure 10 Failure modes of the specimens with various raster orientations loads were taken only by the bonding between
(2 0.003 air gap) compared with injection molded ABS P400 fibers, and not the fibers themselves. The Cross
specimen ([08/908]6) consisted of a layer of
fibers oriented in the 08 direction, followed by a
layer in the 908 direction. The resulting failure
load for this pattern, as might be expected, fell
between the [08]12 and [908]12 specimens. The
Criss-cross ([458/2 458]6) specimen showed
shear failure along the 458 line in the
macroscopic view (Figure 10), but the
microscopic view revealed the repeated failures
of individual fibers by shearing and tension
(Figure 11b). Note that the oval shape of the
fibers is determined by the Quickslice software
settings for road width and slice height.
6.2 Compression tests

For the compression tests, build direction was
the only examined parameter. Because the

failure modes required microscopic complexity of test increases with more
observations. parameters, other possible control parameters
Figure 11 shows magnified views of the such as raster angle and air gap were not
fractured surfaces of the specimens. The Axial considered in this experiment. “Axial”
([08]12) specimens (Figure 11a) showed (horizontal) and “Transverse” (vertical)
tensile failure of individual fibers resulting in directions were defined as shown in Figure 12.
the highest tensile strength among the FDM With a fixed raster angle of [458/2 458] and
specimens (Figure 9). However, this strength zero air gap, the effect of build direction on
was lower than that of the injection molded compression strength could be measured.
ABS partially because the gaps between fibers This effect would be difficult to measure in a
reduced the effective cross sectional area. The tension specimen because the slender and
Transverse ([908]12) specimens resulted in the long geometries involved would result in a
lowest tensile strength because the tensile high probability of buckling.
Figure 11 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) pictures of the fracture surfaces of (a) a [08]12 specimen and (b) a
[458/2458]6 specimen both with 2 0.003 inch air gap
254
Figure 12 Compression specimens with two different are intended to aid designers in improving the
build directions strength and accuracy of their parts made on
the FDM machine. These rules are listed with
a few illustrative examples of how a rule might
apply to a given situation.
Rule 1: Build parts such that tensile loads

will be carried axially along the fibers
Figure 14 shows a boss along with two cross
sections. Two possible orientations for the
roads are shown. In the first cross section, the
roads follow the contour of the boss. If a screw
were threaded into the boss, the maximum
stress (the hoop stress) would be carried
axially by the fibers going around the contour
of the boss. The second cross section is the
default orientation that the FDM software
Figure 13 shows higher compressive strengths
would choose. The maximum stress would be
compared to the tensile strengths shown in

carried across the bonds in this case, resulting
Figure 8. Higher compressive strengths are
in a higher probability of failure.
often observed in polymers, and for bulk ABS
Figure 15 shows a cantilever snap fit. Again
materials. For example, tensile strengths of
two different possible build orientations are
typical bulk ABS range from 32 to 45 MPa shown. In the first cross section, the
while their compressive strengths range from maximum stress (a bending stress in this case)
65 to 90 MPa (ASM, 1988). The Transverse occurs along the roads, while in the second,
specimen had 15 percent lower compressive the maximum stress is carried across the
strength than the axial specimen. In general, roads. Of course, the cantilever built in the
the compressive strengths of FDM specimens first orientation will be significantly stronger.
ranged from 80 to 90 percent of those for
injection molded ABS
Rule 2: Be aware that stress
concentrations occur at radiused
corners. This is because the FDM roads
7. Build rules exhibit discontinuities at such transitions
Figure 16 shows a standard ASTM D3039
Build rules have been formulated based on the tensile specimen that was not used for these
results of the experiments. These guidelines tests for reasons already mentioned.
Figure 13 Compressive strength of specimens with different build direction compared with injection molded ABS P400.
Specimens were built with raster angle of [458/2458] and 0 air gap
255
Figure 14 Two different road orientations for boss design
Figure 15 Two different road orientations for snap-fit design

Notice that although the radius is large, there through the radiused part of the specimen.
are extreme stress concentrations in the first In general, when a radiused area will be
cross section where the vertical roads carrying a load, it is best to build that radius
terminate. All the parts that were built and with contours to alleviate the extreme stress
tested in this configuration fractured on the concentrations that can occur due to
radius where these stress concentrations rasterization.
occur. Cross section 2 shows a better
alternative. However, although the stress
concentrations along the surface of the Rule 3: Use a negative air gap to increase
radius have been removed, stress both strength and stiffness
concentrations in the center of the part have If strength is of primary concern, a negative
been created. An additional problem is that air gap can be used to create a stronger part.
the roads are no longer loaded in pure tension However, an air gap less than 2 0.003 inches
Figure 16 Two different road orientations for ASTM D3039 design
256
should not be used. It was found that parts Following build rules were obtained from
with an air gap smaller than this simply did this study.
not build well due to excess material build up
(1) Build parts such that tensile loads will be
on the nozzle and the part itself. It should be
carried axially along the fibers.
noted that for relatively thick parts, a negative
(2) Be aware that stress concentrations occur
air gap can degrade surface quality and
at radiused corners. This is because the
dimensional tolerances.
FDM roads exhibit discontinuities at
such transitions.
Rule 4: Consider the following issues on
(3) Use a negative air gap to increase both
bead width
strength and stiffness.
.
Small bead width increases build time.
(4) Consider the following issues on bead
.
Small bead width improves surface
width.
quality.
.
Wall thickness of the part should be an .
Small bead width increases build time.
integer multiple of the bead width to .
Small bead width increases surface
avoid gaps. quality.
.
Wall thickness of the part should be an
integer multiple of the bead width.
Rule 5: Consider the effect of build

orientation on part accuracy (5) Consider the effect of build orientation on
.
Two-dimension slices closely reproduce part accuracy.
geometry. (6) Be aware that tensile loaded area tends to
. Three-dimension layer stacking creates fail easier than compression loaded area.
linear approximations.
By applying these build rules, the strength and
Rule 6: Be aware that tensile loaded area quality of FDM parts can be improved.
tends to fail easier than compression
loaded area
Maximum compression strengths of FDM
specimens are approximately double of tensile References
strengths.
ASM (1988), Engineered Materials Handbook, Vol. 2,
Engineering Plastic, ASM International.
ASTM (1976), ASTM D3039-76, Test Method for Tensile
8. Conclusions Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials,
ASTM.
From the Design of Experiment for FDM ASTM (1996), ASTM D695-96, Test Method for
ABS (P400), it was found that the air gap and Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics, ASTM.
ASTM (1997), ASTM D638-97, Test Method for Tensile
raster orientation affect the tensile strength of Properties of Plastics, ASTM.
an FDM part greatly. Bead width, model Box, G., Hunter, W. and Hunter, J. (1978), Statistics for
temperature, and color have little effect. The Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data
measured material properties showed that Analysis, and Model Building, John Wiley & Sons,
parts made by FDM have anisotropic Inc.
characteristics. Measured tensile strengths of FDM (1998), FDMw (System Documentation, Stratasys,
Inc.
the typical Criss-cross raster [458/2 458] and Montero, M., Odell, D., Roundy, S., Ahn, S.H. and Wright,
Cross raster [08/908] with 2 0.003 air gap were P.K. (2001), “Material Characterization of Fused
between 65 and 72 percent of the measured Deposition Modeling (FDM) Process,” Rapid
strength of injection molded FDM ABS. The Prototyping and Manufacturing Conference, Society
compressive strength of FDM material was of Manufacturing Engineers, May 15-17, Cincinnati,
higher than the tensile strength and was not OH, 2001.
Wright, P.K. (2001), 21st Century Manufacturing, Prentice
affected much by build direction. Because of
Hall.
the anisotropic behavior of the parts made by Wu, J. and Hamada, M. (2000), Experiments: Planning,
the FDM process, the strength of a local area Analysis, and Parameter Design Optimization, John
in the part depends on the raster direction. Wiley & Sons, Inc.
257
This article has been cited by:
1. Giovanni Gomez-Gras, Ramón Jerez-Mesa, J. Antonio Travieso-Rodriguez, Jordi Lluma-Fuentes. 2018. Fatigue performance
of fused filament fabrication PLA specimens. Materials & Design 140, 278-285. [Crossref]
2. Joseph R. Kubalak, Alfred L. Wicks, Christopher B. Williams. 2018. Using multi-axis material extrusion to improve
mechanical properties through surface reinforcement. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 13:1, 32-38. [Crossref]
3. Enrique Cuan-Urquizo, Atul Bhaskar. 2018. Flexural elasticity of woodpile lattice beams. European Journal of Mechanics -
A/Solids 67, 187-199. [Crossref]
4. Rinoj Gautam, Sridhar Idapalapati, Stefanie Feih. 2018. Printing and characterisation of Kagome lattice structures by fused
deposition modelling. Materials & Design 137, 266-275. [Crossref]
5. Kensuke Takagishi, Yuya Suzuki, Shinjiro Umezu. 2018. The high precision drawing method of chocolate utilizing
electrostatic ink-jet printer. Journal of Food Engineering 216, 138-143. [Crossref]
6. Daljinder Singh, Rupinder Singh, Kamaljit Singh Boparai. 2018. Development and surface improvement of FDM pattern
based investment casting of biomedical implants: A state of art review. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 31, 80-95. [Crossref]
7. A.C. Abbott, G.P. Tandon, R.L. Bradford, H. Koerner, J.W. Baur. 2018. Process-structure-property effects on ABS bond
strength in fused filament fabrication. Additive Manufacturing 19, 29-38. [Crossref]
8. Mojtaba Khorram Niaki, Fabio Nonino. What Is Additive Manufacturing? Additive Systems, Processes and Materials 1-35.
[Crossref]
9. Sandeep Keerthi, Aamir H. Hamad, Ahsan Mian, Jallisa J. Clifford, Prasun K. Majumdar, Nowrin Chamok, Mohammod Ali.
2017. Effect of heterogeneity in additively manufactured dielectric structures on RF response of microstrip patch antennas.
International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-Aided Engineering 2, e21234. [Crossref]
10. Julien Gardan, Ali Makke, Naman Recho. 2017. Improving the fracture toughness of 3D printed thermoplastic polymers by
fused deposition modeling. International Journal of Fracture 70. . [Crossref]
11. Justin Poelma, Jason Rolland. 2017. Rethinking digital manufacturing with polymers. Science 358:6369, 1384-1385. [Crossref]
12. Ruth Jill Urbanic, Robert W. Hedrick, Syed Saquib, Navid Nazemi. 2017. Material bead deposition with 2 + 2 ½ multi-axis
machining process planning strategies with virtual verification for extruded geometry. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 78. . [Crossref]
13. G. Allaire, C. Dapogny, R. Estevez, A. Faure, G. Michailidis. 2017. Structural optimization under overhang constraints
imposed by additive manufacturing technologies. Journal of Computational Physics 351, 295-328. [Crossref]
14. Rafael J. Zaldivar, Tait D. McLouth, Dhruv N. Patel, Joseph V. Severino, Hyun I. Kim. 2017. Strengthening of plasma
treated 3D printed ABS through epoxy infiltration. Progress in Additive Manufacturing 2:4, 193-200. [Crossref]
15. Farhad Azimifar, Kamran Hassani, Amir Hossein Saveh, Farhad Tabatabai Ghomsheh. 2017. A medium invasiveness multi-
level patient’s specific template for pedicle screw placement in the scoliosis surgery. BioMedical Engineering OnLine 16:1. .
[Crossref]
16. , . 2017. Mechanical Characterization of Additively Manufactured Parts by FE Modeling of Mesostructure. Journal of
Manufacturing and Materials Processing 1:2, 18. [Crossref]
17. Delin Jiang, Douglas E. Smith. 2017. Anisotropic mechanical properties of oriented carbon fiber filled polymer composites
produced with fused filament fabrication. Additive Manufacturing 18, 84-94. [Crossref]
18. Tait D. McLouth, Joseph V. Severino, Paul M. Adams, Dhruv N. Patel, Rafael J. Zaldivar. 2017. The impact of print
orientation and raster pattern on fracture toughness in additively manufactured ABS. Additive Manufacturing 18, 103-109.
[Crossref]
19. Quankun Cao, Huimin Xie. 2017. Characterization for elastic constants of fused deposition modelling-fabricated materials
based on the virtual fields method and digital image correlation. Acta Mechanica Sinica 33:6, 1075-1083. [Crossref]
20. Pedram Parandoush, Dong Lin. 2017. A review on additive manufacturing of polymer-fiber composites. Composite Structures
182, 36-53. [Crossref]
21. Nicolas Boyard, Olivier Christmann, Mickaël Rivette, Olivier Kerbrat, Simon Richir. Support optimization for additive
manufacturing: application to FDM. Rapid Prototyping Journal 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
22. Dalia Calneryte, Rimantas Barauskas, Daiva Milasiene, Rytis Maskeliunas, Audrius Neciunas, Armantas Ostreika, Martynas
Patasius, Andrius Krisciunas. Multi-scale finite element modeling of 3D printed structures subjected to mechanical loads.
Rapid Prototyping Journal 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
23. Ebubekir Çantı, Mustafa Aydin. Effects of micro particle reinforcement on mechanical properties of 3D printed parts. Rapid
Prototyping Journal 0:ja, 00-00. [Abstract] [PDF]
24. James A. Gopsill, Jonathan Shindler, Ben J. Hicks. 2017. Using finite element analysis to influence the infill design of fused
deposition modelled parts. Progress in Additive Manufacturing 37. . [Crossref]
25. Rupinder Singh, Ravinder Sharma, J. Paulo Davim. 2017. Mechanical properties of bio compatible functional prototypes for
joining applications in clinical dentistry. International Journal of Production Research 25, 1-11. [Crossref]
26. Vishal Francis, Prashant K. Jain. 2017. Investigation on the effect of surface modification of 3D printed parts by nanoclay and
dimethyl ketone. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 4, 1-13. [Crossref]
27. Martin Spoerk, Florian Arbeiter, Hrvoje Cajner, Janak Sapkota, Clemens Holzer. 2017. Parametric optimization of intra-
and inter-layer strengths in parts produced by extrusion-based additive manufacturing of poly(lactic acid). Journal of Applied
Polymer Science 134:41, 45401. [Crossref]
28. Tyler J. Quill, Matthew K. Smith, Tony Zhou, Mohamed Gamal Shafik Baioumy, Joao Paulo Berenguer, Baratunde A. Cola,
Kyriaki Kalaitzidou, Thomas L. Bougher. 2017. Thermal and mechanical properties of 3D printed boron nitride – ABS
composites. Applied Composite Materials 33. . [Crossref]
29. Sofiane Belhabib, Sofiane Guessasma. 2017. Compression performance of hollow structures: From topology optimisation to
design 3D printing. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 133, 728-739. [Crossref]
30. Swayam Bikash Mishra, Rameez Malik, S. S. Mahapatra. 2017. Effect of External Perimeter on Flexural Strength of FDM
Build Parts. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 42:11, 4587-4595. [Crossref]
31. Lindsey M. Bollig, Michael V. Patton, Greg S. Mowry, Brittany B. Nelson-Cheeseman. 2017. Effects of 3-D Printed
Structural Characteristics on Magnetic Properties. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 53:11, 1-6. [Crossref]
32. Amir M. Mirzendehdel, Behzad Rankouhi, Krishnan Suresh. 2017. Strength-Based Topology Optimization for Anisotropic
Parts. Additive Manufacturing . [Crossref]
33. LuzaninOgnjan, Ognjan Luzanin, GuduricVera, Vera Guduric, RisticIvan, Ivan Ristic, MuhicSimon, Simon Muhic. 2017.
Investigating impact of five build parameters on the maximum flexural force in FDM specimens – a definitive screening
design approach. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:6, 1088-1098. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. LiHao, Hao Li, ZhangShuai, Shuai Zhang, YiZhiran, Zhiran Yi, LiJie, Jie Li, SunAihua, Aihua Sun, GuoJianjun, Jianjun
Guo, XuGaojie, Gaojie Xu. 2017. Bonding quality and fracture analysis of polyamide 12 parts fabricated by fused deposition
modeling. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:6, 973-982. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. S. Rohde, J. Cantrell, A. Jerez, C. Kroese, D. Damiani, R. Gurnani, L. DiSandro, J. Anton, A. Young, D. Steinbach, P.
Ifju. 2017. Experimental Characterization of the Shear Properties of 3D–Printed ABS and Polycarbonate Parts. Experimental
Mechanics 55. . [Crossref]
36. Nectarios Vidakis, Markos Petousis, Achilles Vairis, Konstantinos Savvakis, Athena Maniadi. 2017. On the compressive
behavior of an FDM Steward Platform part. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 4:4, 339-346. [Crossref]
37. J. C. E. Mertens, K. Henderson, N. L. Cordes, R. Pacheco, X. Xiao, J. J. Williams, N. Chawla, B. M. Patterson. 2017. Analysis
of thermal history effects on mechanical anisotropy of 3D-printed polymer matrix composites via in situ X-ray tomography.
Journal of Materials Science 52:20, 12185-12206. [Crossref]
38. Jikai Liu, Albert C. To. 2017. Deposition path planning-integrated structural topology optimization for 3D additive
manufacturing subject to self-support constraint. Computer-Aided Design 91, 27-45. [Crossref]
39. Tino Stanković, Jochen Mueller, Kristina Shea. 2017. The effect of anisotropy on the optimization of additively manufactured
lattice structures. Additive Manufacturing 17, 67-76. [Crossref]
40. Claudiu Diaconescu, Stefan Tabacu, Alexandru Oltean. 2017. Design and Analysis of a Fused Deposition Modelling
Manufactured Part. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 252, 012040. [Crossref]
41. Josef F. Christ, Nahal Aliheidari, Amir Ameli, Petra Pötschke. 2017. 3D printed highly elastic strain sensors of multiwalled
carbon nanotube/thermoplastic polyurethane nanocomposites. Materials & Design 131, 394-401. [Crossref]
42. Helge Klippstein, Alejandro Diaz De Cerio Sanchez, Hany Hassanin, Yahya Zweiri, Lakmal Seneviratne. 2017. Fused
Deposition Modeling for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): A Review. Advanced Engineering Materials 4, 1700552. [Crossref]
43. Wen See Tan, Stanislaus Raditya Suwarno, Jia An, Chee Kai Chua, Anthony G. Fane, Tzyy Haur Chong. 2017. Comparison
of solid, liquid and powder forms of 3D printing techniques in membrane spacer fabrication. Journal of Membrane Science
537, 283-296. [Crossref]
44. Rafael Thiago Luiz Ferreira, Igor Cardoso Amatte, Thiago Assis Dutra, Daniel Bürger. 2017. Experimental characterization
and micrography of 3D printed PLA and PLA reinforced with short carbon fibers. Composites Part B: Engineering 124,
88-100. [Crossref]
45. Felix W. Baumann, Oliver Kopp, Dieter Roller. 2017. Abstract API for 3D printing hardware and software resources. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 92:1-4, 1519-1535. [Crossref]
46. Zhenbin Liu, Min Zhang, Bhesh Bhandari, Yuchuan Wang. 2017. 3D printing: Printing precision and application in food
sector. Trends in Food Science & Technology . [Crossref]
47. LiuJikai, Jikai Liu, YuHuangchao, Huangchao Yu. 2017. Concurrent deposition path planning and structural topology
optimization for additive manufacturing. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:5, 930-942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. ZhouYing-Guo, Ying-Guo Zhou, SuBei, Bei Su, TurngLih-sheng, Lih-sheng Turng. 2017. Deposition-induced effects of
isotactic polypropylene and polycarbonate composites during fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:5,
869-880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. D’AmicoAnthony A., Anthony A. D’Amico, DebaieAnalise, Analise Debaie, PetersonAmy M., Amy M. Peterson. 2017. Effect
of layer thickness on irreversible thermal expansion and interlayer strength in fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyping
Journal 23:5, 943-953. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Zhiyang Zhao, Fang Peng, Kevin A. Cavicchi, Mukerrem Cakmak, R. A. Weiss, Bryan D. Vogt. 2017. Three-Dimensional
Printed Shape Memory Objects Based on an Olefin Ionomer of Zinc-Neutralized Poly(ethylene- co -methacrylic acid). ACS
Applied Materials & Interfaces 9:32, 27239-27249. [Crossref]
51. Samuel Clark Ligon, Robert Liska, Jürgen Stampfl, Matthias Gurr, Rolf Mülhaupt. 2017. Polymers for 3D Printing and
Customized Additive Manufacturing. Chemical Reviews 117:15, 10212-10290. [Crossref]
52. Vishal Francis, Prashant K. Jain. 2017. Achieving improved dielectric, mechanical, and thermal properties of additive
manufactured parts via filament modification using OMMT-based nanocomposite. Progress in Additive Manufacturing 52. .
[Crossref]
53. Carsten Koch, Luke Van Hulle, Natalie Rudolph. 2017. Investigation of mechanical anisotropy of the fused filament fabrication
process via customized tool path generation. Additive Manufacturing 16, 138-145. [Crossref]
54. Giovanni Postiglione, Gabriele Natale, Gianmarco Griffini, Marinella Levi, Stefano Turri. 2017. UV-assisted three-
dimensional printing of polymer nanocomposites based on inorganic fillers. Polymer Composites 38:8, 1662-1670. [Crossref]
55. Chelsea S. Davis, Kaitlyn E. Hillgartner, Seung Hoon Han, Jonathan E. Seppala. 2017. Mechanical strength of welding zones
produced by polymer extrusion additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 16, 162-166. [Crossref]
56. Fabio A. Cruz Sanchez, Hakim Boudaoud, Sandrine Hoppe, Mauricio Camargo. 2017. Polymer Recycling in an Open-Source
Additive Manufacturing Context: Mechanical Issues. Additive Manufacturing . [Crossref]
57. Ömer Bayraktar, Gültekin Uzun, Ramazan Çakiroğlu, Abdulmecit Guldas. 2017. Experimental study on the 3D-printed
plastic parts and predicting the mechanical properties using artificial neural networks. Polymers for Advanced Technologies
28:8, 1044-1051. [Crossref]
58. Craig A. Steeves, Glenn D. Hibbard, Manan Arya, Ante T. Lausic. Dynamics of Nanolattices: Polymer-Nanometal Lattices
258-281. [Crossref]
59. Marcus Ivey, Garrett W. Melenka, Jason. P. Carey, Cagri Ayranci. 2017. Characterizing short-fiber-reinforced composites
produced using additive manufacturing. Advanced Manufacturing: Polymer & Composites Science 3:3, 81-91. [Crossref]
60. S.F. Costa, F.M. Duarte, J.A. Covas. 2017. Estimation of filament temperature and adhesion development in fused deposition
techniques. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 245, 167-179. [Crossref]
61. Jeffrey Plott, Albert Shih. 2017. The Extrusion-based Additive Manufacturing of Moisture-Cured Silicone Elastomer with
Minimal Void for Pneumatic Actuators. Additive Manufacturing . [Crossref]
62. F. Akasheh, A. Rochester, H. Aglan. 2017. Effect of Build Orientation on the Mechanical Properties and Fracture Behavior
of ABS Produced by Fused Deposition Modeling. Microscopy and Microanalysis 23:S1, 758-759. [Crossref]
63. Anselm Heuer, Pascal Pinter, Kay Andr? Weidenmann. 2017. Analysis of the Effects of Raster Orientation in Components
Consisting of Short Glass Fibre Reinforced ABS of Different Fibre Volume Fraction Produced by Additive Manufacturing.
Key Engineering Materials 742, 482-489. [Crossref]
64. Nahal Aliheidari, Rajasekhar Tripuraneni, Amir Ameli, Siva Nadimpalli. 2017. Fracture resistance measurement of fused
deposition modeling 3D printed polymers. Polymer Testing 60, 94-101. [Crossref]
65. M. Fuhrmann, B. Falk, R. Schmitt. Transferability of predictive black box models to different application scenarios 60-65.
[Crossref]
66. Dong-Gap Shin, Tae-Hyeong Kim, Dae-Eun Kim. 2017. Review of 4D printing materials and their properties. International
Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology 4:3, 349-357. [Crossref]
67. Zhen Hu, Sankaran Mahadevan. 2017. Uncertainty quantification in prediction of material properties during additive
manufacturing. Scripta Materialia 135, 135-140. [Crossref]
68. Neiko P. Levenhagen, Mark D. Dadmun. 2017. Bimodal molecular weight samples improve the isotropy of 3D printed
polymeric samples. Polymer 122, 232-241. [Crossref]
69. Yuan Zhuang, Wentong Song, Gang Ning, Xueyan Sun, Zhongzheng Sun, Guowei Xu, Bo Zhang, Yening Chen, Shengyang
Tao. 2017. 3D–printing of materials with anisotropic heat distribution using conductive polylactic acid composites. Materials
& Design 126, 135-140. [Crossref]
70. Laura E Diment, Mark S Thompson, Jeroen HM Bergmann. 2017. Three-dimensional printed upper-limb prostheses lack
randomised controlled trials: A systematic review. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 1, 030936461770480. [Crossref]
71. KhaliqMuhammad Hussam, Muhammad Hussam Khaliq, GomesRui, Rui Gomes, FernandesCélio, Célio Fernandes,
NóbregaJoão, João Nóbrega, CarneiroOlga Sousa, Olga Sousa Carneiro, FerrásLuis Lima, Luis Lima Ferrás. 2017. On the
use of high viscosity polymers in the fused filament fabrication process. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:4, 727-735. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
72. SantanaLeonardo, Leonardo Santana, AhrensCarlos Henrique, Carlos Henrique Ahrens, da Costa Sabino NettoAurélio,
Aurélio da Costa Sabino Netto, BoninCassiano, Cassiano Bonin. 2017. Evaluating the deposition quality of parts produced
by an open-source 3D printer. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:4, 796-803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. CantrellJason T., Jason T. Cantrell, RohdeSean, Sean Rohde, DamianiDavid, David Damiani, GurnaniRishi, Rishi
Gurnani, DiSandroLuke, Luke DiSandro, AntonJosh, Josh Anton, YoungAndie, Andie Young, JerezAlex, Alex Jerez,
SteinbachDouglas, Douglas Steinbach, KroeseCalvin, Calvin Kroese, IfjuPeter G., Peter G. Ifju. 2017. Experimental
characterization of the mechanical properties of 3D-printed ABS and polycarbonate parts. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:4,
74. MohamedOmar Ahmed, Omar Ahmed Mohamed, MasoodSyed Hasan, Syed Hasan Masood, BhowmikJahar Lal, Jahar Lal
Bhowmik. 2017. Experimental investigation for dynamic stiffness and dimensional accuracy of FDM manufactured part using
IV-Optimal response surface design. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:4, 736-749. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Fei Ni, Guangchun Wang, Haibin Zhao. 2017. Fabrication of water-soluble poly(vinyl alcohol)-based composites with
improved thermal behavior for potential three-dimensional printing application. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 134:24. .
[Crossref]
76. Kejia Yang, Jesse C. Grant, Patrice Lamey, Alexandra Joshi-Imre, Benjamin R. Lund, Ronald A. Smaldone, Walter Voit. 2017.
Diels-Alder Reversible Thermoset 3D Printing: Isotropic Thermoset Polymers via Fused Filament Fabrication. Advanced
Functional Materials 27:24, 1700318. [Crossref]

77. , , , . 2017. Compression Tests of ABS Specimens for UAV Components Produced via the FDM Technique. Technologies
5:2, 20. [Crossref]
78. Y. Song, Y. Li, W. Song, K. Yee, K.-Y. Lee, V.L. Tagarielli. 2017. Measurements of the mechanical response of unidirectional
3D-printed PLA. Materials & Design 123, 154-164. [Crossref]
79. Kam-Ming Mark Tam, Caitlin T. Mueller. 2017. Additive Manufacturing Along Principal Stress Lines. 3D Printing and
Additive Manufacturing 4:2, 63-81. [Crossref]
80. J.M. Chacón, M.A. Caminero, E. García-Plaza, P.J. Núñez. 2017. Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused
deposition modelling: Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection. Materials & Design
124, 143-157. [Crossref]
81. Anders Olsson, Maja S Hellsing, Adrian R Rennie. 2017. New possibilities using additive manufacturing with materials that
are difficult to process and with complex structures. Physica Scripta 92:5, 053002. [Crossref]
82. Alessandro Ceruti, Alfredo Liverani, Tiziano Bombardi. 2017. Augmented vision and interactive monitoring in 3D printing
process. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 11:2, 385-395. [Crossref]
83. Fei Ni, Guangchun Wang, Haibin Zhao. 2017. Molecular and condition parameters dependent diffusion coefficient of water
in poly(vinyl alcohol): a molecular dynamics simulation study. Colloid and Polymer Science 295:5, 859-868. [Crossref]
84. Volkan Kovan, Gurkan Altan, Eyup Sabri Topal. 2017. Effect of layer thickness and print orientation on strength of 3D
printed and adhesively bonded single lap joints. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 31:5, 2197-2201. [Crossref]
85. Kevin Estelle, Dylan Blair, Kent Evans, B. Arda Gozen. 2017. Manufacturing of smart composites with hyperelastic property
gradients and shape memory using fused deposition. Journal of Manufacturing Processes . [Crossref]
86. Nagendra G. Tanikella, Ben Wittbrodt, Joshua M. Pearce. 2017. Tensile strength of commercial polymer materials for fused
filament fabrication 3D printing. Additive Manufacturing 15, 40-47. [Crossref]
87. ChohanJasgurpreet Singh, Jasgurpreet Singh Chohan, SinghRupinder, Rupinder Singh. 2017. Pre and post processing
techniques to improve surface characteristics of FDM parts: a state of art review and future applications. Rapid Prototyping
Journal 23:3, 495-513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. CooganTimothy J., Timothy J. Coogan, KazmerDavid O., David O. Kazmer. 2017. Healing simulation for bond strength
prediction of FDM. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:3, 551-561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. MahmoodShahrain, Shahrain Mahmood, QureshiA.J., A.J. Qureshi, GohKheng Lim, Kheng Lim Goh, TalamonaDidier,
Didier Talamona. 2017. Tensile strength of partially filled FFF printed parts: meta modelling. Rapid Prototyping Journal
23:3, 524-533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. R. J. Urbanic, R. W. Hedrick, C. G. Burford. 2017. A process planning framework and virtual representation for bead-
based additive manufacturing processes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 90:1-4, 361-376.
[Crossref]
91. Sebastian W. Pattinson, A. John Hart. 2017. Additive Manufacturing of Cellulosic Materials with Robust Mechanics and
Antimicrobial Functionality. Advanced Materials Technologies 2:4, 1600084. [Crossref]
92. Kenneth H. Church, Nathan B. Crane, Paul I. Deffenbaugh, Thomas P. Ketterl, Clayton G. Neff, Patrick B. Nesbitt, Justin T.
Nussbaum, Casey Perkowski, Harvey Tsang, Juan Castro, Jing Wang, Thomas M. Weller. 2017. Multimaterial and Multilayer
Direct Digital Manufacturing of 3-D Structural Microwave Electronics. Proceedings of the IEEE 105:4, 688-701. [Crossref]
93. Sandeep Rathee, Manu Srivastava, Sachin Maheshwari, Arshad Noor Siddiquee. 2017. Effect of varying spatial orientations
on build time requirements for FDM process: A case study. Defence Technology 13:2, 92-100. [Crossref]
94. AkandeStephen Oluwashola, Stephen Oluwashola Akande, DalgarnoKenny, Kenny Dalgarno, MunguiaJavier, Javier Munguia.
2017. Process control testing for fused filament fabrication. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:2, 246-256. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
95. TlegenovYedige, Yedige Tlegenov, WongYoke San, Yoke San Wong, HongGeok Soon, Geok Soon Hong. 2017. A dynamic
model for nozzle clog monitoring in fused deposition modelling. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:2, 391-400. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
96. KeleşÖzgür, Özgür Keleş, BlevinsCaleb Wayne, Caleb Wayne Blevins, BowmanKeith J., Keith J. Bowman. 2017. Effect of
build orientation on the mechanical reliability of 3D printed ABS. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:2, 320-328. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
97. CooganTimothy J., Timothy J. Coogan, KazmerDavid Owen, David Owen Kazmer. 2017. Bond and part strength in fused
deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:2, 414-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. Claire McIlroy, Peter D. Olmsted. 2017. Deformation of an amorphous polymer during the fused-filament-fabrication method
for additive manufacturing. Journal of Rheology 61:2, 379-397. [Crossref]
99. Gianluca Alaimo, Stefania Marconi, Luca Costato, Ferdinando Auricchio. 2017. Influence of meso-structure and chemical
composition on FDM 3D-printed parts. Composites Part B: Engineering 113, 371-380. [Crossref]
100. Xinhua Liu, Mingshan Zhang, Shengpeng Li, Lei Si, Junquan Peng, Yuan Hu. 2017. Mechanical property parametric
appraisal of fused deposition modeling parts based on the gray Taguchi method. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 89:5-8, 2387-2397. [Crossref]
101. Byron James Brooks, Khalid Mahmood Arif, Steven Dirven, Johan Potgieter. 2017. Robot-assisted 3D printing of biopolymer
thin shells. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 89:1-4, 957-968. [Crossref]
102. Harry Gao, Dorcas V. Kaweesa, Jacob Moore, Nicholas A. Meisel. 2017. Investigating the Impact of Acetone Vapor Smoothing
on the Strength and Elongation of Printed ABS Parts. JOM 69:3, 580-585. [Crossref]
103. Charoula Kousiatza, Nikoleta Chatzidai, Dimitris Karalekas. 2017. Temperature Mapping of 3D Printed Polymer Plates:
Experimental and Numerical Study. Sensors 17:3, 456. [Crossref]
104. Shaheryar Atta Khan, Bilal Ahmed Siddiqui, Muhammad Fahad, Maqsood Ahmed Khan. 2017. Evaluation of the Effect of
Infill Pattern on Mechanical Stregnth of Additively Manufactured Specimen. Materials Science Forum 887, 128-132. [Crossref]
105. Luquan Ren, Xueli Zhou, Zhengyi Song, Che Zhao, Qingping Liu, Jingze Xue, Xiujuan Li. 2017. Process Parameter
Optimization of Extrusion-Based 3D Metal Printing Utilizing PW–LDPE–SA Binder System. Materials 10:3, 305. [Crossref]
106. E. Bartolomé, B. Bozzo, P. Sevilla, O. Martínez-Pasarell, T. Puig, X. Granados. 2017. ABS 3D printed solutions for cryogenic
applications. Cryogenics 82, 30-37. [Crossref]
107. Daniel-Alexander Türk, Franco Brenni, Markus Zogg, Mirko Meboldt. 2017. Mechanical characterization of 3D printed
polymers for fiber reinforced polymers processing. Materials & Design 118, 256-265. [Crossref]
108. Vidya Kishore, Christine Ajinjeru, Andrzej Nycz, Brian Post, John Lindahl, Vlastimil Kunc, Chad Duty. 2017. Infrared
preheating to improve interlayer strength of big area additive manufacturing (BAAM) components. Additive Manufacturing
14, 7-12. [Crossref]
109. Kamran Kardel, Hamid Ghaednia, Andres L. Carrano, Dan B. Marghitu. 2017. Experimental and theoretical modeling of
behavior of 3D-printed polymers under collision with a rigid rod. Additive Manufacturing 14, 87-94. [Crossref]
110. Shuna Meng, Hui He, Yunchao Jia, Peng Yu, Bai Huang, Jian Chen. 2017. Effect of nanoparticles on the mechanical
properties of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene specimens fabricated by fused deposition modeling. Journal of Applied Polymer
Science 134:7. . [Crossref]
111. Jin Zhu, Yufei Hu, Yijing Tang, Biao Wang. 2017. Effects of styrene-acrylonitrile contents on the properties of ABS/SAN
blends for fused deposition modeling. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 134:7. . [Crossref]
112. Yifan Jin, Yi Wan, Bing Zhang, Zhanqiang Liu. 2017. Modeling of the chemical finishing process for polylactic acid parts in
fused deposition modeling and investigation of its tensile properties. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 240, 233-239.
[Crossref]
113. Xin Wang, Man Jiang, Zuowan Zhou, Jihua Gou, David Hui. 2017. 3D printing of polymer matrix composites: A review and
prospective. Composites Part B: Engineering 110, 442-458. [Crossref]
114. Fuda Ning, Weilong Cong, Yingbin Hu, Hui Wang. 2017. Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic
composites using fused deposition modeling: Effects of process parameters on tensile properties. Journal of Composite Materials
51:4, 451-462. [Crossref]
115. Maksym Rybachuk, Charlène Alice Mauger, Thomas Fiedler, Andreas Öchsner. 2017. Anisotropic mechanical properties of
fused deposition modeled parts fabricated by using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene polymer. Journal of Polymer Engineering
37:7. . [Crossref]
116. YangChuncheng, Chuncheng Yang, TianXiaoyong, Xiaoyong Tian, LiuTengfei, Tengfei Liu, CaoYi, Yi Cao, LiDichen,
Dichen Li. 2017. 3D printing for continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites: mechanism and performance. Rapid
Prototyping Journal 23:1, 209-215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. DutyChad E., Chad E. Duty, KuncVlastimil, Vlastimil Kunc, ComptonBrett, Brett Compton, PostBrian, Brian Post,
ErdmanDonald, Donald Erdman, SmithRachel, Rachel Smith, LindRandall, Randall Lind, LloydPeter, Peter Lloyd,
LoveLonnie, Lonnie Love. 2017. Structure and mechanical behavior of Big Area Additive Manufacturing (BAAM) materials.
Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:1, 181-189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Kensuke Takagishi, Shinjiro Umezu. 2017. Development of the Improving Process for the 3D Printed Structure. Scientific
Reports 7, 39852. [Crossref]
119. Shushu Wang, Rakshith Badarinath, El-Amine Lehtihet, Vittaldas Prabhu. 2017. Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing
Processes in Fabrication of Personalized Robot. International Journal of Automation Technology 11:1, 29-37. [Crossref]
120. Sun Xiaoyong, Cao Liangcheng, Ma Honglin, Gao Peng, Bai Zhanwei, Li Cheng. Experimental Analysis of High
Temperature PEEK Materials on 3D Printing Test 13-16. [Crossref]
121. Hongbin Li, Taiyong Wang, Zhiqiang Yu. 2017. The Quantitative Research of Interaction between Key Parameters and the
Effects on Mechanical Property in FDM. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 2017, 1. [Crossref]
122. Ala’aldin Alafaghani, Ala Qattawi, Buraaq Alrawi, Arturo Guzman. 2017. Experimental Optimization of Fused Deposition
Modelling Processing Parameters: A Design-for-Manufacturing Approach. Procedia Manufacturing 10, 791-803. [Crossref]
123. Kyle Raney, Eric Lani, Devi K. Kalla. 2017. Experimental characterization of the tensile strength of ABS parts manufactured
by fused deposition modeling process. Materials Today: Proceedings 4:8, 7956-7961. [Crossref]
124. Joseph Vanderburgh, Julie A. Sterling, Scott A. Guelcher. 2017. 3D Printing of Tissue Engineered Constructs for In Vitro
Modeling of Disease Progression and Drug Screening. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 45:1, 164-179. [Crossref]
125. David Kazmer. Three-Dimensional Printing of Plastics 617-634. [Crossref]
126. Felip Esteve, Djamila Olivier, Qin Hu, Martin Baumers. Micro-additive Manufacturing Technology 67-95. [Crossref]
127. Jason Cantrell, Sean Rohde, David Damiani, Rishi Gurnani, Luke DiSandro, Josh Anton, Andie Young, Alex Jerez, Douglas
Steinbach, Calvin Kroese, Peter Ifju. Experimental Characterization of the Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed ABS and
Polycarbonate Parts 89-105. [Crossref]
128. Ksawery Szykiedans, Wojciech Credo, Dymitr Osiński. 2017. Selected Mechanical Properties of PETG 3-D Prints. Procedia
Engineering 177, 455-461. [Crossref]
129. Billy Clark, Zhenhuan Zhang, Gordon Christopher, Michelle L. Pantoya. 2017. 3D processing and characterization of
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) energetic thin films. Journal of Materials Science 52:2, 993-1004. [Crossref]
130. Rouhollah D. Farahani, Daniel Therriault, Martine Dubé, Sampada Bodkhe, Mohammadhadi Mahdavi. Additive
Manufacturing of Multifunctional Nanocomposites and Composites . [Crossref]
131. Yifan Jin, Yi Wan, Zhanqiang Liu. 2017. Surface polish of PLA parts in FDM using dichloromethane vapour. MATEC Web
of Conferences 95, 05001. [Crossref]
132. Chee Kai Chua, Chee How Wong, Wai Yee Yeong. Benchmarking for Additive Manufacturing 181-212. [Crossref]
133. C. Wendt, A.P. Valerga, O. Droste, M. Batista, M. Marcos. 2017. FEM based evaluation of Fused Layer Modelling monolayers
in tensile testing. Procedia Manufacturing 13, 916-923. [Crossref]
134. Swayam Bikash Mishra, Kumar Abhishek, Mantra Prasad Satapathy, Siba Sankar Mahapatra. 2017. Parametric Appraisal of
Compressive Strength of FDM Build Parts. Materials Today: Proceedings 4:9, 9456-9460. [Crossref]
135. Ashu Garg, Anirban Bhattacharya. 2017. An insight to the failure of FDM parts under tensile loading: finite element analysis
and experimental study. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 120, 225-236. [Crossref]
136. Radu I. Corcodel, Horea T. Ilies. 2017. Printability analysis in additive manufacturing. Computer-Aided Design and Applications
1. [Crossref]
137. Yi-Ta Wang, Yi-Ting Yeh. Effect of Print Angle on Mechanical Properties of FDM 3D Structures Printed with POM
Material 157-167. [Crossref]
138. Li Yang, Keng Hsu, Brian Baughman, Donald Godfrey, Francisco Medina, Mamballykalathil Menon, Soeren Wiener.
Introduction to Additive Manufacturing 1-31. [Crossref]
139. Jie Zhang, Bin Yang, Feng Fu, Fusheng You, Xiuzhen Dong, Meng Dai. 2017. Resistivity and Its Anisotropy Characterization
of 3D-Printed Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Copolymer (ABS)/Carbon Black (CB) Composites. Applied Sciences 7:1, 20.
[Crossref]
140. Ala?aldin Alafaghani, Ala Qattawi, Muhammad Ali Ablat. 2017. Design Consideration for Additive Manufacturing: Fused
Deposition Modelling. Open Journal of Applied Sciences 07:06, 291-318. [Crossref]
141. Kshitiz Upadhyay, Ravi Dwivedi, Ankur Kumar Singh. Determination and Comparison of the Anisotropic Strengths of Fused
Deposition Modeling P400 ABS 9-28. [Crossref]
142. Gayan A. Appuhamillage, John C. Reagan, Sina Khorsandi, Joshua R. Davidson, Walter Voit, Ronald A. Smaldone. 2017.
3D printed remendable polylactic acid blends with uniform mechanical strength enabled by a dynamic Diels–Alder reaction.
Polymer Chemistry 8:13, 2087-2092. [Crossref]
143. Mario Monzón, Zaida Ortega, Alba Hernández, Rubén Paz, Fernando Ortega. 2017. Anisotropy of Photopolymer Parts Made
by Digital Light Processing. Materials 10:1, 64. [Crossref]
144. Rasheedat Modupe Mahamood, Esther Titilayo Akinlabi. Additive Manufacturing of Funtionally Graded Materials 47-68.
[Crossref]
145. Daniel-Alexander Türk, Ralph Kussmaul, Markus Zogg, Christoph Klahn, Bastian Leutenecker-Twelsiek, Mirko Meboldt.
2017. Composites Part Production with Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Procedia CIRP 66, 306-311. [Crossref]
146. Rupinder Singh, Sunpreet Singh, Mohammed S.J. Hashmi. Polymer Twin Screw Extrusion With Filler Powder
Reinforcement . [Crossref]
147. R.J. Zaldivar, D.B. Witkin, T. McLouth, D.N. Patel, K. Schmitt, 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. [Crossref]
148. Jung Hyun Park, Min-Young Lyu, Soon Yong Kwon, Hyung Jin Roh, Myung Sool Koo, Sung Hwan Cho. 2016. Temperature
Analysis of Nozzle in a FDM Type 3D Printer Through Computer Simulation and Experiment. Elastomers and Composites
51:4, 301-307. [Crossref]
149. Kenny Álvarez, Rodrigo F. Lagos, Miguel Aizpun. 2016. Investigating the influence of infill percentage on the mechanical
properties of fused deposition modelled ABS parts. Ingeniería e Investigación 36:3, 110. [Crossref]
150. Nanya Li, Yingguang Li, Shuting Liu. 2016. Rapid prototyping of continuous carbon fiber reinforced polylactic acid
composites by 3D printing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 238, 218-225. [Crossref]
151. Sofiane Guessasma, Sofiane Belhabib, Hedi Nouri, Omar Ben Hassana. 2016. Anisotropic damage inferred to 3D printed
polymers using fused deposition modelling and subject to severe compression. European Polymer Journal 85, 324-340.
[Crossref]
152. G.D. Goh, S. Agarwala, G.L. Goh, V. Dikshit, W.Y. Yeong. 2016. Additive manufacturing in unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs): Challenges and potential. Aerospace Science and Technology . [Crossref]
153. Carolien Coon, Boris Pretzel, Tom Lomax, Matija Strlič. 2016. Preserving rapid prototypes: a review. Heritage Science 4:1. .
[Crossref]
154. K. Chockalingam, N. Jawahar, J. Praveen. 2016. Enhancement of Anisotropic Strength of Fused Deposited ABS Parts by
Genetic Algorithm. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 31:15, 2001-2010. [Crossref]
155. R. J. Urbanic. 2016. From thought to thing: using the fused deposition modeling and 3D printing processes for undergraduate
design projects. Computer-Aided Design and Applications 13:6, 768-785. [Crossref]
156. C.W. Ziemian, R.D. Ziemian, K.V. Haile. 2016. Characterization of stiffness degradation caused by fatigue damage of additive
manufactured parts. Materials & Design 109, 209-218. [Crossref]
157. Rima Janusziewicz, John R. Tumbleston, Adam L. Quintanilla, Sue J. Mecham, Joseph M. DeSimone. 2016. Layerless
fabrication with continuous liquid interface production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:42, 11703-11708.
[Crossref]
158. KimEunseob, Eunseob Kim, ShinYong-Jun, Yong-Jun Shin, AhnSung-Hoon, Sung-Hoon Ahn. 2016. The effects of
moisture and temperature on the mechanical properties of additive manufacturing components: fused deposition modeling.
159. Garrett W. Melenka, Benjamin K.O. Cheung, Jonathon S. Schofield, Michael R. Dawson, Jason P. Carey. 2016. Evaluation and
prediction of the tensile properties of continuous fiber-reinforced 3D printed structures. Composite Structures 153, 866-875.
[Crossref]
160. Abinesh Kurapatti Ravi, Anagh Deshpande, Keng H. Hsu. 2016. An in-process laser localized pre-deposition heating approach
to inter-layer bond strengthening in extrusion based polymer additive manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 24,
179-185. [Crossref]
161. Jonathan E. Seppala, Kalman D. Migler. 2016. Infrared thermography of welding zones produced by polymer extrusion
additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 12, 71-76. [Crossref]
162. Miguel Fernandez-Vicente, Wilson Calle, Santiago Ferrandiz, Andres Conejero. 2016. Effect of Infill Parameters on Tensile
Mechanical Behavior in Desktop 3D Printing. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 3:3, 183-192. [Crossref]
163. Ryosuke Matsuzaki, Masahito Ueda, Masaki Namiki, Tae-Kun Jeong, Hirosuke Asahara, Keisuke Horiguchi, Taishi
Nakamura, Akira Todoroki, Yoshiyasu Hirano. 2016. Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber composites by in-
nozzle impregnation. Scientific Reports 6:1. . [Crossref]
164. Xingchen Liu, Vadim Shapiro. 2016. Homogenization of material properties in additively manufactured structures. Computer-
Aided Design 78, 71-82. [Crossref]
165. Sebastian Hertle, Maximilian Drexler, Dietmar Drummer. 2016. Additive Manufacturing of Poly(propylene) by Means of
Melt Extrusion. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering . [Crossref]
166. Markus Lämmermann, Wilhelm Schwieger, Hannsjörg Freund. 2016. Experimental investigation of gas-liquid distribution
in periodic open cellular structures as potential catalyst supports. Catalysis Today 273, 161-171. [Crossref]
167. Mark Yampolskiy, Anthony Skjellum, Michael Kretzschmar, Ruel A. Overfelt, Kenneth R. Sloan, Alec Yasinsac. 2016. Using
3D printers as weapons. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 14, 58-71. [Crossref]
168. Bernd Niese, Philipp Amend, Thomas Frick, Stephan Roth, Michael Schmidt. Fast and flexible production of mechatronic
integrated devices by means of additive manufacturing 1-6. [Crossref]
169. A. Vairis, M. Petousis, N. Vidakis, K. Savvakis. 2016. On the Strain Rate Sensitivity of Abs and Abs Plus Fused Deposition
Modeling Parts. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 25:9, 3558-3565. [Crossref]
170. Li Yang, Hadi Miyanaji, Durga Janaki Ram, Amir Zandinejad, Shanshan Zhang. Functionally Graded Ceramic Based Materials
Using Additive Manufacturing: Review and Progress 43-55. [Crossref]
171. Daniel P. Cole, Jaret C. Riddick, H. M. Iftekhar Jaim, Kenneth E. Strawhecker, Nicole E. Zander. 2016. Interfacial mechanical
behavior of 3D printed ABS. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 133:30. . [Crossref]
172. Hedi Nouri, Sofiane Guessasma, Sofiane Belhabib. 2016. Structural imperfections in additive manufacturing perceived from
the X-ray micro-tomography perspective. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 234, 113-124. [Crossref]
173. Rui Zou, Yang Xia, Shiyi Liu, Ping Hu, Wenbin Hou, Qingyuan Hu, Chunlai Shan. 2016. Isotropic and anisotropic elasticity
and yielding of 3D printed material. Composites Part B: Engineering 99, 506-513. [Crossref]
174. A. Milionis, C. Noyes, E. Loth, I. S. Bayer, A. W. Lichtenberger, V. N. Stathopoulos, N. Vourdas. 2016. Water-Repellent
Approaches for 3-D Printed Internal Passages. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 31:9, 1162-1170. [Crossref]
175. Leena Kumari Prasad, Hugh Smyth. 2016. 3D Printing technologies for drug delivery: a review. Drug Development and
Industrial Pharmacy 42:7, 1019-1031. [Crossref]
176. Steven Eric Zeltmann, Nikhil Gupta, Nektarios Georgios Tsoutsos, Michail Maniatakos, Jeyavijayan Rajendran, Ramesh
Karri. 2016. Manufacturing and Security Challenges in 3D Printing. JOM 68:7, 1872-1881. [Crossref]
177. Gobong Choi, Sungmin Kim. 2016. Adaptive modeling method for 3-D printing with various polymer materials. Fibers and
Polymers 17:7, 977-983. [Crossref]
178. Benjamin T. Champion, Mo Jamshidi, Matthew A. Joordens. 3D printed underwater housing 1-6. [Crossref]
179. Jaret C. Riddick, Mulugeta A. Haile, Ray Von Wahlde, Daniel P. Cole, Oluwakayode Bamiduro, Terrence E. Johnson. 2016.
Fractographic analysis of tensile failure of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene fabricated by fused deposition modeling. Additive
Manufacturing 11, 49-59. [Crossref]
180. Zixiang Weng, Jianlei Wang, T. Senthil, Lixin Wu. 2016. Mechanical and thermal properties of ABS/montmorillonite
nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling 3D printing. Materials & Design 102, 276-283. [Crossref]
181. Jonathan Tapia, Eric Wineman, Patrick Benavidez, Aldo Jaimes, Ethan Cobb, John Parsi, Dan Clifton, Mo Jamshidi,
Benjamin Champion. Autonomous mobile robot platform with multi-variant task-specific end-effector and voice activation
1-6. [Crossref]
182. Anders Clausen, Niels Aage, Ole Sigmund. 2016. Exploiting Additive Manufacturing Infill in Topology Optimization for
Improved Buckling Load. Engineering 2:2, 250-257. [Crossref]
183. Fujio Tsumori, Hidenori Kawanishi, Kentaro Kudo, Toshiko Osada, Hideshi Miura. 2016. Development of three-dimensional
printing system for magnetic elastomer with control of magnetic anisotropy in the structure. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics
55:6S1, 06GP18. [Crossref]
184. Sithiprumnea Dul, Luca Fambri, Alessandro Pegoretti. 2016. Fused deposition modelling with ABS–graphene
nanocomposites. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 85, 181-191. [Crossref]
185. Behzad Rankouhi, Sina Javadpour, Fereidoon Delfanian, Todd Letcher. 2016. Failure Analysis and Mechanical
Characterization of 3D Printed ABS With Respect to Layer Thickness and Orientation. Journal of Failure Analysis and
Prevention 16:3, 467-481. [Crossref]
186. Matthew E. Walsh, Alla Ostrinskaya, Morgan T. Sorensen, David S. Kong, Peter A. Carr. 2016. 3D-Printable Materials for
Microbial Liquid Culture. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 3:2, 113-118. [Crossref]
187. Julien Gardan. 2016. Additive manufacturing technologies: state of the art and trends. International Journal of Production
Research 54:10, 3118-3132. [Crossref]
188. R. J. Urbanic, R. Hedrick. 2016. Fused Deposition Modeling Design Rules for Building Large, Complex Components.
Computer-Aided Design and Applications 13:3, 348-368. [Crossref]
189. Sophia N. Economidou, Dimitris Karalekas. 2016. Optical sensor-based measurements of thermal expansion coefficient in
additive manufacturing. Polymer Testing 51, 117-121. [Crossref]
190. Charoula Kousiatza, Dimitris Karalekas. 2016. In-situ monitoring of strain and temperature distributions during fused
deposition modeling process. Materials & Design 97, 400-406. [Crossref]
191. Omar Ben Hassana, Sofiane Guessasma, Sofiane Belhabib, Hedi Nouri. 2016. Explaining the Difference Between Real Part
and Virtual Design of 3D Printed Porous Polymer at the Microstructural Level. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering
301:5, 566-576. [Crossref]
192. Yelin Deng, Shijie Cao, Ailu Chen, Yansong Guo. 2016. The impact of manufacturing parameters on submicron particle
emissions from a desktop 3D printer in the perspective of emission reduction. Building and Environment . [Crossref]
193. A. Le Duigou, M. Castro, R. Bevan, N. Martin. 2016. 3D printing of wood fibre biocomposites: From mechanical to actuation
functionality. Materials & Design 96, 106-114. [Crossref]
194. Torres Jonathan, Jonathan Torres, Cole Matthew, Matthew Cole, Owji Allen, Allen Owji, DeMastry Zachary, Zachary
DeMastry, Gordon Ali P., Ali 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. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
195. Jian Huang, Xiaobo Gong, Qiuhua Zhang, Fabrizio Scarpa, Yanju Liu, Jinsong Leng. 2016. In-plane mechanics of a novel
zero Poisson's ratio honeycomb core. Composites Part B: Engineering 89, 67-76. [Crossref]
196. Aki Kawamura, Haijing Liu, Chika Takai, Takashi Takei, Hadi K. Razavi, Masayoshi Fuji. 2016. Surface modification of
fumed silica by photo-dimerization reaction of cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamoyl chloride. Advanced Powder Technology 27:2,
765-772. [Crossref]
197. K.G. Jaya Christiyan, U. Chandrasekhar, K. Venkateswarlu. 2016. A study on the influence of process parameters on the
Mechanical Properties of 3D printed ABS composite. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 114, 012109.
[Crossref]
198. Thomas M Llewellyn-Jones, Bruce W Drinkwater, Richard S Trask. 2016. 3D printed components with ultrasonically
arranged microscale structure. Smart Materials and Structures 25:2, 02LT01. [Crossref]
199. Angel R. Torrado, David A. Roberson. 2016. Failure Analysis and Anisotropy Evaluation of 3D-Printed Tensile Test
Specimens of Different Geometries and Print Raster Patterns. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 16:1, 154-164.
[Crossref]
200. Chris Banfield, James Kidd, Jamey D. Jacob. Design and Development of a 3D Printed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle . [Crossref]
201. Ivan Gajdoš, Ján Slota, Emil Spišák, Tomasz Jachowicz, Aneta Tor-Swiatek. 2016. Structure and tensile properties evaluation
of samples produced by Fused Deposition Modeling. Open Engineering 6:1. . [Crossref]
202. Jikai Liu. 2016. Guidelines for AM part consolidation. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 11:2, 133. [Crossref]
203. Christoph Klahn, Daniel Singer, Mirko Meboldt. 2016. Design Guidelines for Additive Manufactured Snap-Fit Joints.
Procedia CIRP 50, 264-269. [Crossref]
204. Stanisław Adamczak, Jerzy Bochnia. 2016. Estimating the Approximation Uncertainty for Digital Materials Subjected to
Stress Relaxation Tests. Metrology and Measurement Systems 23:4. . [Crossref]
205. Ji-Eun Lee, Young-Eun Im, Keun Park. 2016. Finite Element Analysis of a Customized Eyeglass Frame Fabricated by 3D
Printing. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 40:1, 65-71. [Crossref]
206. Kevin S. Paulsen, Aram J. Chung. 2016. Non-spherical particle generation from 4D optofluidic fabrication. Lab Chip 16:16,
2987-2995. [Crossref]
207. Caterina Casavola, Alberto Cazzato, Vincenzo Moramarco, Carmine Pappalettere. 2016. Orthotropic mechanical properties of
fused deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate theory. Materials & Design 90, 453-458. [Crossref]
208. Julien Gardan, Ali Makke, Naman Recho. 2016. A Method to Improve the Fracture Toughness Using 3D Printing by
Extrusion Deposition. Procedia Structural Integrity 2, 144-151. [Crossref]
209. Marcel Bogers, Ronen Hadar, Arne Bilberg. 2016. Additive manufacturing for consumer-centric business models: Implications
for supply chains in consumer goods manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 102, 225-239. [Crossref]
210. Bernd Niese, Philipp Amend, Stephan Roth, Michael Schmidt. 2016. Laser-based Generation of Conductive Circuits on
Additive Manufactured Thermoplastic Substrates. Physics Procedia 83, 954-963. [Crossref]
211. J. Obedt Figueroa-Cavazos, Eduardo Flores-Villalba, José A. Diaz-Elizondo, Oscar Martínez-Romero, Ciro A. Rodríguez,
Héctor R. Siller. 2016. Design Concepts of Polycarbonate-Based Intervertebral Lumbar Cages: Finite Element Analysis and
Compression Testing. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 2016, 1-9. [Crossref]
212. Christiane Wendt, Severo Raúl Fernández-Vidal, Álvaro Gómez-Parra, Moisés Batista, Mariano Marcos. 2016. Processing
and Quality Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing Monolayer Specimens. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 2016,
1-8. [Crossref]
213. Michael Dawoud, Iman Taha, Samy J. Ebeid. 2016. Mechanical behaviour of ABS: An experimental study using FDM and
injection moulding techniques. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 21, 39-45. [Crossref]
214. M. Faes, E. Ferraris, D. Moens. 2016. Influence of Inter-layer Cooling time on the Quasi-static Properties of ABS Components
Produced via Fused Deposition Modelling. Procedia CIRP 42, 748-753. [Crossref]
215. Mahmood Shahrain, Talamona Didier, Goh Kheng Lim, A.J. Qureshi. 2016. Fast Deviation Simulation for ‘Fused Deposition
Modeling’ Process. Procedia CIRP 43, 327-332. [Crossref]
216. Leander Behre, Paolo Mercorelli, Udo Becker, Theo van Niekerk. 2016. Rapid Prototyping of a Mechatronic Engine Valve
Controller for IC Engines**The project was financially supported by Ministry of the Culture and Research of Lower Saxony
(Germany). BMBF-Project-Nr.: 17N2111. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49:21, 54-58. [Crossref]
217. Anton Salem, M. Singh, Michael C. Halbig. 3-D Printing and Characterization of Polymer Composites With Different
Reinforcements 113-122. [Crossref]
218. Wei Gao, Yunbo Zhang, Devarajan Ramanujan, Karthik Ramani, Yong Chen, Christopher B. Williams, Charlie C.L. Wang,
Yung C. Shin, Song Zhang, Pablo D. Zavattieri. 2015. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in
engineering. Computer-Aided Design 69, 65-89. [Crossref]
219. J. Giannatsis, A. Vassilakos, V. Canellidis, V. Dedoussis. Fabrication of graded structures by extrusion 3D Printing 175-179.
[Crossref]
220. Martin Leary, Tomas Kron, Cameron Keller, Rick Franich, Peta Lonski, Aleksandar Subic, Milan Brandt. 2015. Additive
manufacture of custom radiation dosimetry phantoms: An automated method compatible with commercial polymer 3D
printers. Materials & Design 86, 487-499. [Crossref]
221. M. Dawoud, I. Taha, S. J. Ebeid. 2015. Effect of processing parameters and graphite content on the tribological behaviour of
3D printed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Materialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik 46:12, 1185-1195. [Crossref]
222. V. Kovan, G. Altan, E.S. Topal, H.E. Camurlu. Surface Roughness Effect on the 3d Printed Butt Joints Strength . [Crossref]
223. Saigopal Nelaturi, Vadim Shapiro. 2015. Representation and analysis of additively manufactured parts. Computer-Aided Design
67-68, 13-23. [Crossref]
224. Miquel Domingo-Espin, Josep M. Puigoriol-Forcada, Andres-Amador Garcia-Granada, Jordi Llumà, Salvador Borros,
Guillermo Reyes. 2015. Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused deposition modeling Polycarbonate
parts. Materials & Design 83, 670-677. [Crossref]
225. Robert J.A. Allen, Richard S. Trask. 2015. An experimental demonstration of effective Curved Layer Fused Filament
Fabrication utilising a parallel deposition robot. Additive Manufacturing 8, 78-87. [Crossref]
226. Ben Ezair, Fady Massarwi, Gershon Elber. 2015. Orientation analysis of 3D objects toward minimal support volume in 3D-
printing. Computers & Graphics 51, 117-124. [Crossref]
227. Ben Wittbrodt, Joshua M. Pearce. 2015. The effects of PLA color on material properties of 3-D printed components. Additive
Manufacturing 8, 110-116. [Crossref]
228. Haixi Wu, Yan Wang, Zhonghua Yu. 2015. In situ monitoring of FDM machine condition via acoustic emission. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology . [Crossref]
229. Shaheryar A. Khan, Bilal A. Siddiqui, Muhammad Fahad. Evaluation of additive manufacturing techniques for fabrication
of propellers for SUAVs 1-4. [Crossref]
230. Wenzheng Wu, Peng Geng, Guiwei Li, Di Zhao, Haibo Zhang, Ji Zhao. 2015. Influence of Layer Thickness and Raster
Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a Comparative Mechanical Study between PEEK and ABS.
Materials 8:9, 5834-5846. [Crossref]
231. Peng Feng, Xinmiao Meng, Jian-Fei Chen, Lieping Ye. 2015. Mechanical properties of structures 3D printed with
cementitious powders. Construction and Building Materials 93, 486-497. [Crossref]
232. John Klein, Michael Stern, Giorgia Franchin, Markus Kayser, Chikara Inamura, Shreya Dave, James C. Weaver, Peter Houk,
Paolo Colombo, Maria Yang, Neri Oxman. 2015. Additive Manufacturing of Optically Transparent Glass. 3D Printing and
Additive Manufacturing 2:3, 92-105. [Crossref]
233. Garrett W. Melenka, Jonathon S. Schofield, Michael R. Dawson, Jason P. Carey. 2015. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy
and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21:5, 618-627. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
234. Antonio Lanzotti, Marzio Grasso, Gabriele Staiano, Massimo Martorelli. 2015. The impact of process parameters on
mechanical properties of parts fabricated in PLA with an open-source 3-D printer. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21:5, 604-617.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
235. Mohammad Vaezi, Shoufeng Yang. 2015. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications.
Virtual and Physical Prototyping 10:3, 123-135. [Crossref]
236. David A. Roberson, Angel R. Torrado Perez, Corey M. Shemelya, Armando Rivera, Eric MacDonald, Ryan B. Wicker. 2015.
Comparison of stress concentrator fabrication for 3D printed polymeric izod impact test specimens. Additive Manufacturing
7, 1-11. [Crossref]
237. H. Li, G. Taylor, V. Bheemreddy, O. Iyibilgin, M. Leu, K. Chandrashekhara. 2015. Modeling and characterization of fused
deposition modeling tooling for vacuum assisted resin transfer molding process. Additive Manufacturing 7, 64-72. [Crossref]
238. Bin Huang, Sarat B Singamneni. 2015. Curved Layer Adaptive Slicing (CLAS) for fused deposition modelling. Rapid
239. Stephen Oluwashola Akande, Kenny W. Dalgarno, Javier Munguia. 2015. Low-Cost QA Benchmark for Fused Filament
Fabrication. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 2:2, 78-84. [Crossref]
240. H. Rezayat, W. Zhou, A. Siriruk, D. Penumadu, S. S. Babu. 2015. Structure–mechanical property relationship in fused
deposition modelling. Materials Science and Technology 31:8, 895-903. [Crossref]
241. Hamilton Turner, Jules White, Jaime A. Camelio, Christopher Williams, Brandon Amos, Robert Parker. 2015. Bad Parts:
Are Our Manufacturing Systems at Risk of Silent Cyberattacks?. IEEE Security & Privacy 13:3, 40-47. [Crossref]
242. Brian N. Turner, Scott A Gold. 2015. A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: II. Materials, dimensional
accuracy, and surface roughness. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21:3, 250-261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
243. Sophia Ziemian, Maryvivian Okwara, Constance Wilkens Ziemian. 2015. Tensile and fatigue behavior of layered acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21:3, 270-278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
244. Andrew Katz, Justin Nussbaum, Craig P Lusk, Nathan B Crane. 2015. Stress-limiting test structures for rapid low-cost
strength and stiffness assessment. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21:2, 144-151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
245. David Roberson, Corey M Shemelya, Eric MacDonald, Ryan Wicker. 2015. Expanding the applicability of FDM-type
technologies through materials development. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21:2, 137-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
246. Omar A. Mohamed, Syed H. Masood, Jahar L. Bhowmik. 2015. Optimization of fused deposition modeling process
parameters: a review of current research and future prospects. Advances in Manufacturing 3:1, 42-53. [Crossref]
247. Seyeon Hwang, Edgar I. Reyes, Kyoung-sik Moon, Raymond C. Rumpf, Nam Soo Kim. 2015. Thermo-mechanical
Characterization of Metal/Polymer Composite Filaments and Printing Parameter Study for Fused Deposition Modeling in
the 3D Printing Process. Journal of Electronic Materials 44:3, 771-777. [Crossref]
248. E Cuan-Urquizo, S Yang, A Bhaskar. 2015. Mechanical characterisation of additively manufactured material having lattice
microstructure. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 74, 012004. [Crossref]
249. Bin Huang, Sarat Singamneni. 2015. Raster angle mechanics in fused deposition modelling. Journal of Composite Materials
49:3, 363-383. [Crossref]
250. S.F. Costa, F.M. Duarte, J.A. Covas. 2015. Thermal conditions affecting heat transfer in FDM/FFE: a contribution towards
the numerical modelling of the process. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 10:1, 35-46. [Crossref]
251. Vijay.B. Nidagundi, R. Keshavamurthy, C.P.S. Prakash. 2015. Studies on Parametric Optimization for Fused Deposition
Modelling Process. Materials Today: Proceedings 2:4-5, 1691-1699. [Crossref]
252. Sofiane Guessasma, Weihong Zhang, Jihong Zhu, Sofiane Belhabib, Hedi Nouri. 2015. Challenges of additive manufacturing
technologies from an optimisation perspective. International Journal for Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
6, A9. [Crossref]
253. Christoph Klahn, Bastian Leutenecker, Mirko Meboldt. 2015. Design Strategies for the Process of Additive Manufacturing.
Procedia CIRP 36, 230-235. [Crossref]
254. C. Wendt, M. Batista, E. Moreno, A.P. Valerga, S.R. Fernández-Vidal, O. Droste, M. Marcos. 2015. Preliminary Design and
Analysis of Tensile Test Samples Developed by Additive Manufacturing. Procedia Engineering 132, 132-139. [Crossref]
255. Manu Srivastava, Sachin Maheshwari, T.K. Kundra. 2015. Virtual Modelling and Simulation of Functionally Graded Material
Component using FDM Technique. Materials Today: Proceedings 2:4-5, 3471-3480. [Crossref]
256. Robert W. Hedrick, R. Jill Urbanic, Chris G. Burford. 2015. Development Considerations for an Additive Manufacturing
CAM System. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48:3, 2327-2332. [Crossref]
257. Ż. A. Mierzejewska. 2015. Process Optimization Variables for Direct Metal Laser Sintering. Advances in Materials Science
15:4. . [Crossref]
258. M. Syamsuzzaman, N. A. Mardi, M. Fadzil, Y. Farazila. 2014. Investigation of layer thickness effect on the performance of low-
cost and commercial fused deposition modelling printers. Materials Research Innovations 18:sup6, S6-485-S6-489. [Crossref]
259. Jelena Prsa, Julian Muller, Franz Irlinger, Tim C. Lueth. Evaluation of the infill algorithm for trajectory planning of pointed
ends for droplet-generating 3D printers 1560-1565. [Crossref]
260. Steven Shaffer, Kejia Yang, Juan Vargas, Matthew A. Di Prima, Walter Voit. 2014. On reducing anisotropy in 3D printed
polymers via ionizing radiation. Polymer 55:23, 5969-5979. [Crossref]
261. Martin Leary, Luigi Merli, Federico Torti, Maciej Mazur, Milan Brandt. 2014. Optimal topology for additive manufacture:
A method for enabling additive manufacture of support-free optimal structures. Materials & Design 63, 678-690. [Crossref]
262. Jaroslaw Kotlinski. 2014. Mechanical properties of commercial rapid prototyping materials. Rapid Prototyping Journal 20:6,
263. David Blanco, Pelayo Fernandez, Alvaro Noriega. 2014. Nonisotropic experimental characterization of the relaxation modulus
for PolyJet manufactured parts. Journal of Materials Research 29:17, 1876-1882. [Crossref]
264. Yunho Yang, Christopher Yarka, Jian Cao, Kornel Ehmann. 2014. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Feasibility of using
Copper(II)Oxide for additive manufacturing. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 15:9,
1961-1965. [Crossref]
265. K Olasek, P Wiklak. 2014. Application of 3D printing technology in aerodynamic study. Journal of Physics: Conference Series
530, 012009. [Crossref]
266. Suoyuan Song, Andi Wang, Qiang Huang, Fugee Tsung. Shape deviation modeling for fused deposition modeling processes
758-763. [Crossref]
267. Pavan Kumar Gurrala, Srinivasa Prakash Regalla. 2014. Part strength evolution with bonding between filaments in fused
deposition modelling. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 9:3, 141-149. [Crossref]
268. Farzad Rayegani, Godfrey C. Onwubolu. 2014. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter prediction and
optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE). The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 73:1-4, 509-519. [Crossref]

269. Angel R. Torrado Perez, David A. Roberson, Ryan 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. [Crossref]
270. Miquel Domingo-Espin, Salvador Borros, Nuria Agullo, Andres-Amador Garcia-Granada, Guillermo Reyes. 2014. Influence
of Building Parameters on the Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Polycarbonate Fused Deposition Modeling Parts. 3D
Printing and Additive Manufacturing 1:2, 70-77. [Crossref]
271. B.M. Tymrak, M. Kreiger, J.M. Pearce. 2014. Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers
under realistic environmental conditions. Materials & Design 58, 242-246. [Crossref]
272. L. C. Magalhães, N. Volpato, M. A. Luersen. 2014. Evaluation of stiffness and strength in fused deposition sandwich
specimens. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 36:3, 449-459. [Crossref]
273. Nevin Hill, Mehrdad Haghi. 2014. Deposition direction-dependent failure criteria for fused deposition modeling
polycarbonate. Rapid Prototyping Journal 20:3, 221-227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
274. Brian N. Turner, Robert Strong, Scott A. Gold. 2014. A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process
design and modeling. Rapid Prototyping Journal 20:3, 192-204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
275. Ismail Durgun, Rukiye Ertan. 2014. Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of mechanical properties
and production cost. Rapid Prototyping Journal 20:3, 228-235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
276. Pavan Kumar Gurrala, Srinivasa Prakash Regalla. 2014. Multi-objective optimisation of strength and volumetric shrinkage
of FDM parts. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 9:2, 127-138. [Crossref]
277. David Palousek, Jiri Rosicky, Daniel Koutny, Pavel Stoklásek, Tomas Navrat. 2014. Pilot study of the wrist orthosis design
process. Rapid Prototyping Journal 20:1, 27-32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
278. Godfrey C. Onwubolu, Farzad Rayegani. 2014. Characterization and Optimization of Mechanical Properties of ABS Parts
Manufactured by the Fused Deposition Modelling Process. International Journal of Manufacturing Engineering 2014, 1-13.
[Crossref]
279. L. Villalpando, H. Eiliat, R.J. Urbanic. 2014. An Optimization Approach for Components Built by Fused Deposition
Modeling with Parametric Internal Structures. Procedia CIRP 17, 800-805. [Crossref]
280. S.H. Masood. Advances in Fused Deposition Modeling 69-91. [Crossref]
281. Bin Huang, Sarat Singamneni. 2014. Adaptive slicing and speed- and time-dependent consolidation mechanisms in fused
deposition modeling. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 228:1,
111-126. [Crossref]
282. Jelena Prsa, Johannes Schwaiger, Franz Irlinger, Tim C. Lueth. Dense 3D-packing algorithm for filling the offset contours
of a new printing process based on 3D plastic droplet generation 74-78. [Crossref]
283. Dario Croccolo, Massimiliano De Agostinis, Giorgio Olmi. 2013. Experimental characterization and analytical modelling
of the mechanical behaviour of fused deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30. Computational Materials Science 79,
506-518. [Crossref]
284. Carlos A. Costa, Paulo Roberto Linzmaier, Felipe M. Pasquali. 2013. Rapid Prototyping Material Degradation: a Study of
Mechanical Properties. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 46:24, 350-355. [Crossref]
285. Nannan Guo, Ming C. Leu. 2013. Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and research needs. Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering 8:3, 215-243. [Crossref]
286. John Lee, Adam Huang. 2013. Fatigue analysis of FDM materials. Rapid Prototyping Journal 19:4, 291-299. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
287. Marlon Wesley Machado Cunico. 2013. Study and optimisation of FDM process parameters for support-material-free
deposition of filaments and increased layer adherence. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 8:2, 127-134. [Crossref]
288. Jeremy F. Laliberté, Kurtis L. Kraemer, Jeff W. Dawson, David Miyata. 2013. Design and Manufacturing of Biologically
Inspired Micro Aerial Vehicle Wings Using Rapid Prototyping. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles 5:1, 15-38.
[Crossref]
289. D. Md Razak, S. Syahrullail, Azli Yahya, Nazriah Mahmud, Nor Liyana Safura Hashim, Kartiko Nugroho. 2013. Lubrication
on the Curve Surface Structure Using Palm Oil and Mineral Oil. Procedia Engineering 68, 607-612. [Crossref]
290. Andrew J. Capel, Steve Edmondson, Steven D. R. Christie, Ruth D. Goodridge, Richard J. Bibb, Matthew Thurstans. 2013.
Design and additive manufacture for flow chemistry. Lab on a Chip 13:23, 4583. [Crossref]
291. J. Martínez, J.L. Diéguez, E. Ares, A. Pereira, P. Hernández, J.A. Pérez. 2013. Comparative between FEM Models for FDM
Parts and their Approach to a Real Mechanical Behaviour. Procedia Engineering 63, 878-884. [Crossref]
292. R. W. Hedrick, R. J. Urbanic. 2013. Integration of Additive Manufacturing and Virtual Verification Strategies within a
Commercial CAM System. Computer-Aided Design and Applications 10:4, 567-583. [Crossref]
293. Neri Oxman, Elizabeth Tsai, Michal Firstenberg. 2012. Digital anisotropy: A variable elasticity rapid prototyping platform.
Virtual and Physical Prototyping 7:4, 261-274. [Crossref]
294. R. G. Rinaldi, J. Bernal-Ostos, C. I. Hammetter, A. J. Jacobsen, F. W. Zok. 2012. Effects of material heterogeneities on the
compressive response of thiol-ene pyramidal lattices. Journal of Materials Science 47:18, 6621-6632. [Crossref]
295. Victoria Townsend, Jill Urbanic. 2012. Relating additive and subtractive processes in a teleological and modular approach.
296. Jaret Riddick, Asha Hall, Mulugeta Haile, Raymond Von Wahlde, Daniel Cole, Stephen Biggs. Effect of Manufacturing
Parameters on Failure in Acrylonitrile-Butadiane-Styrene Fabricated by Fused Deposition Modeling . [Crossref]
297. ANOOP KUMAR SOOD, VEDANSH CHATURVEDI, SAURAV DATTA, SIBA SANKAR MAHAPATRA. 2011.
OPTIMIZATION OF PROCESS PARAMETERS IN FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING USING WEIGHTED
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 10:02, 241-259. [Crossref]
298. A.W. Fatimatuzahraa, B. Farahaina, W.A.Y Yusoff. The effect of employing different raster orientations on the mechanical
properties and microstructure of Fused Deposition Modeling parts 22-27. [Crossref]
299. Marlon Wesley Machado Cunico, Carlos Marcus Gomes da Silva Cruz, Miriam Machado Cunico, Neri Volpato. 2011.
Development of new rapid prototyping process. Rapid Prototyping Journal 17:2, 138-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
300. Jae-Won Choi, Francisco Medina, Chiyen Kim, David Espalin, David Rodriguez, Brent Stucker, Ryan Wicker. 2011.
Development of a mobile fused deposition modeling system with enhanced manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 211:3, 424-432. [Crossref]
301. Ansgar Waldbaur, Holger Rapp, Kerstin Länge, Bastian E. Rapp. 2011. Let there be chip—towards rapid prototyping of
microfluidic devices: one-step manufacturing processes. Analytical Methods 3:12, 2681. [Crossref]
302. Cho‐Pei Jiang. 2010. Vessel phantom fabrication using rapid prototyping technique for investigating thermal dosage profile
in HIFU surgery. Rapid Prototyping Journal 16:6, 417-423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
303. C. Lira, F. Scarpa. 2010. Transverse shear stiffness of thickness gradient honeycombs. Composites Science and Technology 70:6,
930-936. [Crossref]
304. Constance Ziemian, Ronald Ziemian, Eric Barker. 2010. Shake‐table simulation study of small scale layered models. Rapid
305. L.M. Galantucci, F. Lavecchia, G. Percoco. 2010. Quantitative analysis of a chemical treatment to reduce roughness of parts
fabricated using fused deposition modeling. CIRP Annals 59:1, 247-250. [Crossref]
306. Anoop Kumar Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra. 2010. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition
modelling processed parts. Materials & Design 31:1, 287-295. [Crossref]
307. Mathew Stevenson, Stephen D. Waldman, Yongjun Lai. 2010. Development of a Multi-axial Mechanical Cell Stimulator.
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 21:2, 213-220. [Crossref]
308. Daekeon Ahn, Jin-Hwe Kweon, Soonman Kwon, Jungil Song, Seokhee Lee. 2009. Representation of surface roughness in
fused deposition modeling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209:15-16, 5593-5600. [Crossref]
309. Samuel Markkula, Steven Storck, Devin Burns, Marc Zupan. 2009. Compressive Behavior of Pyramidal, Tetrahedral,
and Strut-Reinforced Tetrahedral ABS and Electroplated Cellular Solids. Advanced Engineering Materials 11:1-2, 56-62.
[Crossref]
310. Cho-Pei Jiang. Investigation on Occlusion Effect of Tumor Vessel in HIFU Surgery 1-5. [Crossref]
311. Samir Kumar PANDA, Saumyakant PADHEE, Anoop Kumar SOOD, S. S. MAHAPATRA. 2009. Optimization of Fused
Deposition Modelling (FDM) Process Parameters Using Bacterial Foraging Technique. Intelligent Information Management
01:02, 89-97. [Crossref]
312. Bettina Wendel, Dominik Rietzel, Florian Kühnlein, Robert Feulner, Gerrit Hülder, Ernst Schmachtenberg. 2008. Additive
Processing of Polymers. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering 293:10, 799-809. [Crossref]
313. Peter Tek, Terry C. Chiganos, Javeed Shaikh Mohammed, David T. Eddington, Christopher P. Fall, Peter Ifft, Patrick J.
Rousche. 2008. Rapid prototyping for neuroscience and neural engineering. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 172:2, 263-269.
[Crossref]
314. Q. Sun, G.M. Rizvi, C.T. Bellehumeur, P. Gu. 2008. Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer
filaments. Rapid Prototyping Journal 14:2, 72-80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
315. Debapriya Chakraborty, B. Aneesh Reddy, A. Roy Choudhury. 2008. Extruder path generation for Curved Layer Fused
Deposition Modeling. Computer-Aided Design 40:2, 235-243. [Crossref]
316. Che Chung Wang, Ta‐Wei Lin, Shr‐Shiung Hu. 2007. Optimizing the rapid prototyping process by integrating the Taguchi
method with the Gray relational analysis. Rapid Prototyping Journal 13:5, 304-315. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
317. C.S. Lee, S.G. Kim, H.J. Kim, S.H. Ahn. 2007. Measurement of anisotropic compressive strength of rapid prototyping parts.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 187-188, 627-630. [Crossref]

318. B. V. Reddy, N. V. Reddy, A. Ghosh. 2007. Fused deposition modelling using direct extrusion. Virtual and Physical Prototyping
2:1, 51-60. [Crossref]
319. Ker Chin Ang, Kah Fai Leong, Chee Kai Chua, Margam Chandrasekaran. 2006. Investigation of the mechanical properties and
porosity relationships in fused deposition modelling‐fabricated porous structures. Rapid Prototyping Journal 12:2, 100-105.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
320. R. C. Pennington, N. L. Hoekstra, J. L. Newcomer. 2005. Significant factors in the dimensional accuracy of fused deposition
modelling. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 219:1, 89-92.
[Crossref]
321. Y Ning, Y S Wong, J Y H Fuh. 2005. Effect and control of hatch length on material properties in the direct metal laser
sintering process. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 219:1,
15-25. [Crossref]
322. Sung‐Hoon Ahn, Caroline S. Lee, Woobyok Jeong. 2004. Development of translucent FDM parts by post‐processing. Rapid
323. Woo-Byok Jeong, Sun-Young Lee, Sung-Hoon Ahn. 2003. Development of Translucent RP Material by Post-processing:
Case Study of FDM. Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A 27:9, 1524-1530. [Crossref]
324. Sung Hoon Ahn, Changil Baek, Sunyoung Lee, In Shup Ahn. 2003. Anisotropic Tensile Failure Model of Rapid Prototyping
Parts - Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM). International Journal of Modern Physics B 17:08n09, 1510-1516. [Crossref]
325. Ganzi Suresh, K. L. Narayana. A Review on Fabricating Procedures in Rapid Prototyping 1-21. [Crossref]
View publication stats

Fuse Deposition Modeling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuse Deposition Modeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS

Article in Rapid Prototyping Journal · October 2002

Sung-Hoon Ahn Dan Odell

Energy Harvesting for Wearables View project

Nano/Micro Robot and Actuator View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Authors thank Seunghwa Kim, Hongkyung Lee,

material is extruded in a semi-molten state,

A trial run was performed in which a series of

samples were built on the FDM machine by

4. Design of experiment Table I Variable symbols and level settings

6.2 Compression tests

the only examined parameter. Because the

Rule 1: Build parts such that tensile loads

compared to the tensile strengths shown in

Figure 14 Two different road orientations for boss design

Figure 15 Two different road orientations for snap-fit design

Figure 16 Two different road orientations for ASTM D3039 design

Rule 5: Consider the effect of build

Functional Materials 27:24, 1700318. [Crossref]

Advanced Manufacturing Technology 73:1-4, 509-519. [Crossref]

Journal of Materials Processing Technology 187-188, 627-630. [Crossref]

View publication stats

You might also like