Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Materials
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-materials

Anisotropic properties of 3-D printed Poly Lactic Acid (PLA) and

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastics
Aneurin Grant a, *, Bradley Regez b, Salih Kocak a, Joshua D. Huber c, Adam Mooers d
a
Construction Management Program, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL, USA
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of West Florida, USA
c
Huber Engineering, LLC, USA
d
University of West Florida, USA

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

Keywords: Research was conducted on the mechanical and anisotropic properties of 3-D printed plastics (PLA and ABS), and
Additive manufacturing the prevailing orientation and deposition of additive layers. Samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D638
Stress-strain - Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. Five print orientations were tested, including 0◦ , 30◦ ,
3-Printing
45◦ , 60◦ , and 90◦ . Six samples were tested in each orientation, with a total of 30 samples being tested in each
Plastics
Anisotropy
iteration of the experiment. An initial, “proof of concept” iteration was conducted with PLA plastic, followed by a
Strength second iteration which tested both PLA and ABS.
Testing was conducted and based on the hypothesis that the material printed in the 0◦ orientation (parallel to
the direction of applied tension) would be stronger, and that the strength of test specimens would be largely
dependent on orientation of the material. In contrast, it was believed that the strength of 90◦ samples
(perpendicular to the direction of applied tension) would be largely dependent on the strength of the bonds
formed during the layer by layer deposition of heated material, and comparatively weaker. This was largely
proven during testing. Samples printed in the 0◦ orientation exhibited statistically higher properties of both stress
and strain. Conversely, plastics printed in the 90◦ orientation exhibited statistically weaker properties. It was
noted that samples printed in the 30◦ , 45◦ , and 60◦ orientations exhibited some measure of improved ductility,
although this was not the focus of the study.

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing, more commonly known as 3-D printing, is a
transformational technology [1]. The open sourcing of design permits
the production of parts and materials unrestricted by location, and rapid
prototyping allows small test runs of experimental products without the
traditionally large investment of reductive processes. 3-D printing has
already been applied across a variety of economic sectors, and suc­
cessfully integrated into the biomedical, aerospace and automotive in­
dustries [2].
Some have envisioned larger applications for 3-D printing, as in the
fabrication of construction materials, wall forms and entire buildings
[3]. The potential benefits of 3-D printing in the construction industry
extend far beyond open sourcing and rapid prototyping. Construction
remains one of the most hazardous industries [4,5]. Much of the 3-D
printing that has been done in the construction industry employs an
automated or modular concept, and it has been shown that modular
construction techniques are, in some ways, safer than traditional
methods [6]. Modularity further implies a simplification of methods, the
minimization of employee exposure (as in work at elevation), with many
hazards effectively “engineered” from the process [7]. It has also been
shown that simplified methods of modular construction limit construc­
tion waste [8] and reduce expense in material and building delivery [9].
Widespread implementation of 3-D printing could change the delivery
and transportation of construction materials. Some have predicted the
obsolescence of freight [10]. Others have foreseen a construction pro­
cess driven by robotics [11,12] and on-site customization [12], as local
printer use would essentially reinvent many construction processes [13].
Each of these gains in efficiency suggests economy in the use of re­
sources. Materials are used with sparing precision [14], with expecta­
tions of previously unimagined improvements in the future [15]. Gebler
et al. [16] have suggested that 3-D Printing has the ability to increase

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: agrant1@uwf.edu (A. Grant).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinma.2021.100227
Received 9 December 2020; Received in revised form 11 August 2021; Accepted 15 September 2021
Available online 20 September 2021
2590-048X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Grant et al.
resource efficiency, reduce materials requirements, manufacturing
waste and CO2 emissions, and that these benefits could have impacts on
a global scale.
A number of research projects and pilot studies have focused on large
format 3-D printing with concrete [14,17]. WinSun Decoration Design
Engineering Co. Has demonstrated the full capabilities of 3-D Printing
technology, by producing 10 full-scale house structures within a 24-h
period - a rate of productivity that would far outstrip that of conven­
tional cast-in-place systems and large work crews - and the tallest 3-D
printed building in the world [18].
2. Delivery methods and structural properties
There are many different methods of Additive Manufacturing,
depending on the material used, efficiency, economy, or desired
outcome. For example, various manufacturing techniques include,
direct deposit, Arburg plastic free forming [19], resin infusion and hand
lay-up [20], fused deposition modelling [21], laser sintering [22],
binder jetting [23] and cold spraying [24].
The mechanical properties of materials vary greatly depending on
the capabilities of design software, the technical specifications of the
equipment, and perhaps most importantly, the ability of the designer to
control the underlying programming language, i.e. g-code, some of
which is proprietary. Ahmed et al. [25] have observed that print quality
is highly variable depending on “printing speed and layer height”.
Additional variables have been observed, specifically in this paper,
regarding the temperature of the extruder, the temperature of the build
plate, the thickness of material deposited, and infill percentage, in
addition to the variables introduced by different equipment, and the
quality, age, and varied production methods for different spools of
filament.
3. Anisotropy and other factors in material quality and strength
Anisotropy and material heterogeneity are comprehensively docu­
mented in a critical review literature review conducted by Kok et al.
[26]. Anisotropy, or more specifically, “grain alignment” has been cited
as one of several specific ways of strengthening ceramic materials [27].
Historically, there have been issues with the costs and quality of 3-D
printed metal products [28], including concerns about microscopic de­
fects and unmelted powder in 3-D printed metals, which affect the
quality and strength of the printed material [29]. Chae et al. [30]
studied the anisotropic properties of stainless steel in an additive
manufacturing scenario, and anisotropy is acknowledged as a structural
issue in the additive manufacturing of Nickel-Aluminum Bronze [31].
Structural weakness and manufacturing deficiencies stemming from
anisotropic properties within the materials have been noted in many
Additive Manufacturing case studies, including the rolling of Inconel
625 [32], and microstructural effects on crack growth in Stainless steel
alloy 304 L [33].
In larger format printing contexts, such as construction, concrete has
been widely used as a feedstock, as observed in the following research
projects. Structurally, the use of concrete in 3-D printing applications
poses several structural problems, including “the bonding between
printed layers of concrete and lack of reinforcement”. The material can
only work in the state of pure compression”, and cannot be used to
manufacture floors and ceilings [34]. The additive manufacturing of
concrete also presents a unique “workability” challenge, in that shape
stability and print quality may be adversely affected by the unconfined
deposition of layers and the continuous “stacking” and bearing pressure
of material [35]. In part, these concerns are echoed in Ashrafi et al. [3];
where the authors are concerned with the “material deformation” that
occurs following the layer-by-layer deposition of the material. In an
effort to minimize this unconfined deformation, the authors test
different processing variables, including layer thickness, printing
orientation, and direction. Similar studies indicate that mix design is a
2
Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227
central concern in the 3-D printing of concrete [36,37], as this is
believed to be one of the main causes of structural deficiencies. The
technology is therefore limited to wall and form construction (Katzer
and Szatkiewicz 2019), and additional, conventional processes are
required to construct floor slabs and roofs.
4. Plastics
Across all industries, the 3-D printing of plastics has been the most
successful and widely implemented, owing in part to the generally
smaller scale of production, low melting point of the material, and
relatively low requirements for structural and mechanical performance.
Materials such as Poly Lactic Acid (PLA), nylon, High Density Poly­
ethylene (HDPE) and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) have all
been used for small components. As construction materials, plastics have
several inherent weaknesses: they are relatively weak as compared with
steel and concrete, have high rates of thermal expansion, relatively poor
thermal performance as a wall or roof systems, and degrade rapidly
under harsh weather conditions, such as those found in arid climates,
areas of intense wind and ultraviolet light. Pilot studies have been
implemented with the use of ABS, however, but little is known of the
strength of the material and structure [38].
Most plastic objects are produced by injection molding, a process
wherein heated material is injected into a mold, allowed to cool, and
released from the mold in the shape of the desired object. Injection
molding generally produces plastics of high consistency and reliable
quality. Plastics have been tested extensively in this manner, and results
are fairly predictable, following the testing protocols of ASTM D638 -
Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics.
As much is known about the structural performance of injection
molded plastics, comparatively little is known about the structural
performance of 3-D printed plastics. In this study, we have explored the
structural properties of PLA and ABS using the ASTM D638 testing
method. Specifically, we have tested these plastics based on the hy­
pothesis that the mechanical properties of 3-D printed plastics will
exhibit anisotropic properties, and that the materials’ ultimate strength
will vary in accordance with the orientation of the print.
In this manner, the material is expected to behave similarly to wood,
another anisotropic material, which exhibits different structural prop­
erties in accordance with the orientation to the grain. Generally, it is
much easier to break wood in the tangential or radial direction, as the
materials’ strength is determined by the lignin bonds between fibers.
Wood is much stronger in the longitudinal direction, as the material’s
ultimate failure strength is determined by the strength of the cellulose
fibers. In the case of plastics, this study will compare the strength of the
material itself, to the bonds that are formed by the deposition of layers of
melted plastics.
5. Method
This study was conducted in two iterations. Initially, 30 samples of
PLA were printed on a consumer grade printer, in accordance with
sample sizes specified in ASTM D638 Type I (Fig. 1). The capabilities of
the printer included a build volume of 225 × 145 × 150 mm, 500 μm
layer resolution low, 100 μm layer resolution high, 0.4 mm nozzle
diameter, 1.75 mm filament diameter, 40 mm/s minimum print speed,
and a 100 mm/s print speed maximum. Print orientation was specified
using Simplify 3-D software. In this iteration, the temperature of the
extruder was set at 200 ◦ C. Six samples were printed in five different
orientations (n = 30), as shown in Fig. 2. All other variables used the
default settings. Each sample was tested and analyzed for tensile
strength, stress, and strain using an MTS Criterion Series 40C45.105
(Electromechanical Universal Test System) load frame (Fig. 3). A 1-inch
extensometer (MTS Model: 634.11E-24) was used to measure the elon­
gation of the specimen, and MTS TestSuite software was used to analyze
the data.
A. Grant et al. Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227

Fig. 1. ASTM D638 dimensional schematic.

Fig. 3. Samples of 3D Printed PLA tested in MTS load frame with MTS Model:
634.11E-24 extensometer.

Materials were analyzed for both stress and strain. The term stress is
used to express the loading in terms of force applied to a certain cross-
sectional area of an object. From the perspective of loading, stress is
the applied force or system of forces that tends to deform a body, and
calculated as follows (Equation (1)):
P Axial Force
σ= = (1)
A Perpendicular Resisting Area

where.
P = applied force or load (axial); units are expressed in kips (k), N, or
kN.
A = resisting cross-sectional area perpendicular to the load direction:
units are expressed as in0.2, ft.2, m2, mm2
σ (sigma) = the symbol(s) representing unit stress (normal); units are
expressed as #/in.2, k/in.2. K/ft.2, and pascal (N/m2) or N/mm2
Eq. (1) – Standard Stress Formula.
The term strain is defined as the amount of deformation in the di­
rection of the applied force divided by the initial length of the material,
and calculated as follows (Eq. (1)):
δ
ε= (2)
L
Fig. 2. ASTM D638 print orientations.
where.
ε = unit strain (cm/cm).
A second iteration was performed using samples of both PLA and ABS δ = total deformation (cm).
plastics. These samples were printed with a professional grade 3-D L = original length (cm).
printer. The printer capabilities included a build volume of 355 × Eq. (2) – Standard Stress Formula.
355 × 315 mm, nozzle diameters of 0.4 mm, 0.6 mm, and 0.8 mm, Stress-strain curves were calculated for each iteration of testing. IBM
feature tolerances between 0.07 and 0.15 mm, a minimum print speed of SPSS Statistics 25 [39] was used to perform a statistical analysis of the
250 mm/s and a maximum print speed of 500 mm/s. For the PLA data, including descriptive statistics and correlations between depen­
samples, the extruder head was set at 230 ◦ C. For the ABS samples, the dent and independent variables.
extruder head was set at 260 ◦ C, and the build plate was heated to
110 ◦ C. All other variables used the default settings. Samples were again 6. Results
tested and analyzed for both stress and strain, using the aforementioned
MTS load frame, extensometer, and testing software. As with the first 6.1. First iteration
iteration of testing, six samples were printed in five different orienta­
tions for both the PLA and ABS plastics (Fig. 4), resulting in 30 samples The first iteration of testing produced mixed results. Although testing
of each plastic (total 60).

3
A. Grant et al. Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227

Fig. 4. ASTM D638 Samples of PLA (blue) and ABS (black) plastics.

was designed to conform to the ASTM D638 standards, which requires a

Table 2
minimum of six test sample results, several test samples broke outside of
Correlation between orientation, strain, and stress in first iteration of 3D printed
the intended area, i.e. outside of the narrow section (neck or gage).
PLA samples.
Table 1 shows the number of viable samples, minimum, maximum,
mean, and standard deviation for each print orientation. Notably, the Correlations

maximum strength of each print orientation decreased as the orientation Orientation Strain Stress
of the print varied from 0◦ to 90◦ . A correlation analysis was performed Orientation Pearson Correlation 1 -.556** -.915**
on these data to verify this apparent relationship. Initial findings were Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.000
consistent with the hypothesis, in that the first set of 3-D printed plastics N 27 27 27
exhibited anisotropic properties. Indeed, the samples printed with the Strain Pearson Correlation -.556** 1 .404*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.036
0◦ orientation (longitudinal) were the strongest and performed best N 27 27 27
according to the results of the stress-strain analysis, and the 90◦ samples Stress Pearson Correlation -.915** .404* 1
were the weakest. As noted in Table 2, a strong and statistically signif­ Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.036
icant (at the 0.01 level, 2-tailed) was observed between the sample N 27 27 27
orientation and the stress of the material. No such relationship was **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
observed between the orientation of the print and the material strain. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Fig. 5 depicts a stress-strain curve for the first iteration of 3D Printed
PLA samples. While the results are consistent with the initial hypothesis, These observations are largely corroborated by the correlations shown
that print orientation will be a determining factor in the materials’ ul­ in Table 4, where strong and statistically significant (at the 0.01 level, 2-
timate strength, other properties are apparent in the stress-strain curves, tailed) relationships are observed between print orientation, stress and,
namely, the ductility exhibited by prolonged curves between the elastic strain.
and plastic regions of the 30◦ – 60◦ sample curves. A second stress-strain curve was generated for the second iteration of
3D Printed PLA samples (Fig. 6). These samples exhibited slightly
6.2. Second iteration – PLA different behaviors. Specifically, the 30◦ – 60◦ sample curves are
perceptibly less ductile that those depicted in the first iteration.
The second iteration of samples produced similar results to the first
iteration, as noted in Table 3. Although, there are some differences be­ 6.3. Second iteration ABS
tween Tables 1 and 3, notably the ultimate strength of the material, the
results still seem to support the initial hypothesis, in that the ultimate During the second iteration, an additional 30 samples of ABS plastic
strength of the material is largely dependent on the print orientation. were tested and analyzed. As with the first and second round of testing

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of first iteration of 3D printed PLA samples.
Orientation Measure N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

0◦ Strain 3 0.0014 0.0077 0.0090 0.0083 0.0007

Stress 3 6.2147 47.4319 53.6467 50.0628 3.2151
30◦ Strain 6 0.0052 0.0100 0.0152 0.0127 0.0023
Stress 6 10.6286 35.3963 46.0249 38.4862 3.9701
45◦ Strain 6 0.0089 0.0067 0.0156 0.0109 0.0037
Stress 6 6.0781 25.1111 31.1892 27.0451 2.2190
60◦ Strain 6 0.0017 0.0071 0.0088 0.0079 0.0006
Stress 6 7.3582 20.8826 28.2408 24.5411 2.7391
90◦ Strain 6 0.0010 0.0046 0.0056 0.0052 0.0004
Stress 6 6.4649 15.5671 22.0320 19.4736 2.1885

4
A. Grant et al. Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227

Fig. 5. Stress-strain curve for first iteration of PLA sample.

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of second iteration of 3D printed PLA samples.
Orientation Measure N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

0◦
Strain 5 0.0042 0.0112 0.0155 0.0140 0.0016
Stress 5 1.6637 50.7803 52.4440 51.3531 0.6798
30 ◦
Strain 5 0.0016 0.0061 0.0077 0.0070 0.0006
Stress 5 3.5299 29.8935 33.4234 31.9133 1.4843
45◦ Strain 5 0.0033 0.0079 0.0111 0.0094 0.0014
Stress 5 1.4698 31.8201 33.2899 32.6935 0.6356
60◦ Strain 6 0.0193 0.0068 0.0261 0.0105 0.0077
Stress 6 4.1333 29.6425 33.7758 31.7230 1.9663
90◦ Strain 6 0.0018 0.0053 0.0070 0.0060 0.0007
Stress 6 5.4159 25.1502 30.5661 28.0617 2.2267

a stress-strain curve was generated for the ABS samples (Fig. 7). It should
Table 4
be noted that the performance of the ABS was much more consistent and
Correlation between orientation, strain, and stress in second iteration of 3D
predicable.
printed PLA samples.
Correlations 7. Discussion and conclusions
Orientation Strain Stress

Orientation Pearson Correlation 1 -.492** -.837** Ultimately, the results of this study support the original hypothesis
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009 0.000 (at least to a degree), that 3-D printed PLA and ABS plastics exhibit
N 27 27 27 anisotropic properties, in that their strength is largely dependent on the
Strain Pearson Correlation -.492** 1 .633**
orientation of the print. This is supported by the strong and statistically
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009 0.000
N 27 27 27
significant relationships observed between the print orientation and the
Stress Pearson Correlation -.837** .633** 1 ultimate stress of each iteration of PLA and ABS plastic samples.
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 Notably, no such statistical relationship was evident between the
N 27 27 27 strain of the material and the print orientation, except for the second
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). iteration of PLA samples. However, this outcome is still consistent with
the original hypothesis. A such, in measuring the ultimate tensile
with PLA, the material exhibited different properties, specifically, noted strength of the material, strain should be considered ancillary
differences in the ultimate strength of the material. As shown in Table 5, consideration.
differences were observed in the ultimate strength of materials, and It is equally important to acknowledge the limitations of this study.
largely dependent on the orientation of the print. Indeed, a statistically Per ASTM D638, a minimum of 6 samples should be recorded. In the case
significant correlation (at the 0.01 level, 2-tailed) was observed between of this study, the first iteration had several failures. For example, some
the ultimate stress of the second iteration of ABS samples and the print samples broke outside of the central, narrow section (neck or gage). In
orientation. No such correlation was observed between the print the interests producing additional data, a second iteration of samples
orientation and the materials strain (Table 6). As with the PLA samples, (including ABS) was produced. Similar problems were encountered,

5
A. Grant et al. Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227

Fig. 6. Stress-strain curve for second iteration of PLA samples.

Table 5
Descriptive statistics of second iteration of 3D printed ABS samples.
Orientation Measure N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

0◦ Strain 6 0.0034 0.0083 0.0117 0.0101 0.0011

Stress 6 5.4193 35.2053 40.6246 39.0060 1.9477
30◦ Strain 6 0.0122 0.0115 0.0236 0.0179 0.0051
Stress 6 1.7157 36.9974 38.7131 37.6982 0.6167
45◦ Strain 5 0.0133 0.0133 0.0267 0.0193 0.0051
Stress 5 1.2129 36.0996 37.3124 36.7590 0.4734
60◦ Strain 6 0.0132 0.0128 0.0261 0.0210 0.0050
Stress 6 7.9550 32.2763 40.2313 34.9752 2.7410
90◦ Strain 6 0.0061 0.0084 0.0145 0.0112 0.0020
Stress 6 1.2489 32.2501 33.4990 32.7626 0.5037

negligible. However, for the purposes of structural analysis, such dif­

Table 6
ferences are an important consideration.
Correlation between orientation, strain, and stress in second iteration of 3D
It is also important to note where several of the samples broke.
printed ABS samples.
Several of the samples broke in close proximity to the grips on the MTS
Correlations load frame, which may have “pre-loaded” additional stress into the
Orientation Strain Stress sample. Several samples broke within the radius of the filet, where the
Orientation Pearson Correlation 1 0.114 -.825** neck transitions into the broader ends of the sample. It is possible that
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.557 0.000 additional stresses accumulate in this area of the ASTM D638 Type I
N 29 29 29 sample, or are brought about by the interlayering and continuous
Strain Pearson Correlation 0.114 1 0.001
deposition of the 3D printer.
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.557 0.995
N 29 29 29
Stress Pearson Correlation -.825** 0.001 1
7.1. Future research
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.995
N 29 29 29
Additive manufacturing presents a multitude of variables. This is
evident in the literature, which covers an extreme breadth of materials,
particularly with the use of PLA. As such, the results presented in this delivery methods, and final products. While much of the literature is
article should be considered as “preliminary”, and sufficient insofar as concerned with productions methods, efficiency, programming, and
they provide a legitimate proof of concept. general capability, the quality and mechanical properties of the mate­
These failures prompt several points of discussion. While the tech­ rials are also a common thread.
nical capabilities and precision of the 3D printers are often lauded, This study was initiated in hopes of finding the mechanical proper­
imperfections in samples are readily observed, including small voids, ties of two materials, specifically the stress-strain of PLA and ABS
clogging, and very small differences in the actual size of the samples. For plastics, in order to ascertain some degree of predictability in perfor­
example, differences of 1 mm width and 0.24 mm thickness were mance. However, the results of this study are something less than pre­
measured in the ABS samples. These differences may seem small and dictable. Additionally, the variables in additive manufacturing are

6
A. Grant et al.
Fig. 7. Stress-strain curve for second iteration of 3D printed ABS samples with varying grain orientation.
multitudinous; the technical specifications of each printer are different,
and the quality, age, storage protocol, and treatment of each material
are unique.
As a logical next step, future research stemming from this study
should focus on alternatives to the two materials analyzed, including
nylon, and carbon fiber. Print parameters should also be examined, such
as modifying the extruder temperature, the temperature of the build
plate, the diameter of the extruder nozzle, and the print speed. In the
longer-term, similar tests should be performed on materials more
commonly associated with “structure”, including 3-D printed concrete
and steel.
The body of research on additive manufacturing and 3-D printing is
quickly evolving. In some applications, such as in the construction in­
dustry, the additive manufacturing of buildings suggests a paradigm
shift. However, as structural requirements are of fundamental impor­
tance, future research is certainly warranted.
Authorship contributions
Aneurin Grant: Conceptualization, methodology, software, writing
original draft, data analysis, reviewing, editing. Bradley Regez: Meth­
odology, software, data analysis, writing, reviewing, and editing. Salih
Kocak: Data analysis, writing, reviewing, and editing. Joshua Huber:
Conceptualization, methodology, software, data analysis, reviewing,
editing. Adam Mooers: Conceptualization, software, sample
preparation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] B. Berman, 3-D printing: the new industrial revolution, Bus. Horiz. 55 (2012)
155–162.
[2] V. Petrovic, J. Vicente Haro Gonzalez, O. Jordá Ferrando, J. Delgado Gordillo, J.
R. Blasco Puchades, L Portolés Griñan, Additive layered manufacturing: sectors of
7
Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227
industrial application shown through case studies, Int. J. Prod. Res. 49 (4) (2011)
1061–1079.
[3] N. Ashrafi, J.P. Duarte, S. Nazarian, N. Meisel, Evaluating the relationship between
deposition and layer quality in large-scale additive manufacturing of concrete,
Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 14 (2) (2019) 135–140.
[4] A.A. Raheem, J.W. Hinze, Disparity between construction safety standards: a global
analysis, Saf. Sci. 70 (2014) 276–287.
[5] G. Carter, S. Smith, Safety hazard identification on construction projects,
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 132 (2) (2006) 197–205.
[6] M. Mirhadi Fard, S.A. Terouhid, C.J. Kibert, H. Hakim, Safety concerns related to
modular/prefabricated building construction, Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot.
(2015), https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2015.1047865.
[7] L.H. Ikuma, I. Nahmens, J. James, Use of safety and lean integrated design to
improve performance in modular homebuilding, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 137 (7)
(2011) 551–560.
[8] L. Jaillon, C.S. Poon, Y.H. Chiang, Quantifying the waste reduction potential of
using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong, Waste Manag. 29 (1)
(2009) 309–320.
[9] A. Khalili, D.K. Chua, Integrated prefabrication configuration and component
grouping for resource optimization of precast production, J. Construct. Eng.
Manag. 140 (2) (2014) 1–12.
[10] T. Birtchnell, J. Urry, C. Cook, A. Curry, Freight Miles: the Impacts of 3-D Printing
on Transportation and Society, 2016. Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) Project ES/J007455/1. Electronic Resource: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/661
98/1/Freight_Miles_Report.pdf.
[11] R.A. Buswell, R.C. Soar, A.G.F. Gibb, A. Thorpe, Freeform construction: mega-scale
rapid manufacturing for construction, Autom. ConStruct. 16 (2007) 224–231.
[12] H. Bier, S. Mostafavi, A. Anton, S. Bodea, B. Raaphorst, G. Mostart, W. Rouwhorst,
Robotically driven construction of building: exploring on-demand building
components production, SPOOL 1 (2) (2014) 31–35.
[13] J.M. Pearce, C. Morris Blair, K.J. Laciak, R. Andrews, A. Nosrat, I. Zelenika-Zovko,
3-D printing of open source appropriate technologies for self-directed sustainable
development, J. Sustain. Dev. 3 (4) (2010) 17–29.
[14] S. Lim, R.A. Buswell, T.T. Le, S.A. Austin, A.G.F. Gibb, T. Thorpe, Developments in
construction-scale additive manufacturing processes, Autom. ConStruct. 21 (2012)
262–268.
[15] J. Hiller, H. Lipson, Design and analysis of digital materials for physical 3D voxel
printing, Rapid Prototyp. J. 15 (2) (2009) 137–149.
[16] M. Gebler, A.J.M.S. Uiterkamp, C. Visser, A global sustainability perspective on 3D
printing technologies, Energy Pol. 74 (2014) 158–167.
[17] American Ceramic Society Bulletin, Floating project uses recycled concrete and 3,
D Print. Sustain. Hous. 94 (2) (2015) 18–19.
[18] Future of Construction, Winsun. Electronic Resource, 2019 accessed 10/3/2019,
https://futureofconstruction.org/case/winsun/.
[19] H.R. Dana, F. Barbe, L. Delbreilh, M.B. Azzouna, A. Guillet, T. Breteau, Polymer
additive manufacturing of ABS structure: influence of printing direction on
mechanical properties, J. Manuf. Process. 44 (2019) 288–298.
[20] M.J.R. Solis, J.M. Salazar, J.O.D. Ramirez, A.B.P. Mendoza, Y. Vega, Analysis of
characteristics of composite materials built on ABS cores prepared by additive
manufacturing, Dyna 94 (3) (2019) 286–291.
A. Grant et al.
[21] Y.H. Li, S.Y. Gao, R.M. Dong, X.B. Ding, X.X. Duan, Additive manufacturing of PLA
and CF/PLA binding layer specimens via fused deposition modeling, J. Mater. Eng.
Perform. 27 (2) (2018) 492–500.
[22] U. Ajoku, N. Saleh, N. Hopkinson, R. Hague, P. Erasenthiran, Investigating
mechanical anisotropy and end-of-vector effect in laser-sintered nylon parts, Proc.
IME B J. Eng. Manufact. 220 (7) (2006) 1077–1086.
[23] J.W. Oh, S. Nahm, B. Kim, H. Choi, Anisotropy in green body bending strength due
to additive direction in the binder-jetting additive manufacturing process, Kor. J.
Met. Mater. 57 (4) (2019) 227–235.
[24] K. Yang, W.Y. Li, X.P. Guo, X.W. Yang, Y.X. Xu, Characterizations and anisotropy of
cold-spraying additive-manufactured copper bulk, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 34 (9)
(2018) 1570–1579.
[25] S.W. Ahmed, G. Hussain, Al-Gamdi, K. Altaf, Mechanical properties of an additive
manufactured CF-PLA/ABS hybrid composite sheet, J. Thermoplast. Compos.
Mater. (2019) 1–20.
[26] Y. Kok, X.P. Tan, P. Wang, M.L.S. Nai, N.H. Loh, E. Liu, S.B. Tor, Anisotropy and
heterogeneity of microstructure and mechanical properties in metal additive
manufacturing: a critical review, Mater. Des. 139 (2018) 565–586.
[27] Z. Zhang, X. Duan, B. Qiu, Z. Yang, D. Cai, P. He, D. Jia, Y. Zhou, Preparation and
anisotropic properties of textured structural ceramics: a review, J. Adv. Ceram. 8
(3) (2019) 289–332.
[28] G.C. Anzalone, C. Zhang, B. Wijnen, P.G. Sanders, J.M. Pearce, A low-cost open-
source metal 3-D printer, IEEE Access 1 (2013) 803–810.
[29] M. Jacoby, Microanalyzing 3-D printed metals, Chem. Eng. News 93 (38) (2015)
43–44.
[30] H. Chae, E.W. Huang, J. Jain, H. Wang, W. Woo, S.W. Chen, S. Harjo, T. Kawasaki,
S.Y. Lee, Plastic anisotropy and deformation-induced phase transformation of
additive manufactured stainless steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. 762 (2019) 138065.
Results in Materials 12 (2021) 100227
[31] C. Shen, G. Mu, X. Hua, F. Li, D. Luo, X. Ji, C. Zhang, Influences of postproduction
heat treatments on the material anisotropy of nickel-aluminum bronze fabricated
using wire-arc additive manufacturing process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 103
(2019) 3199–3209.
[32] C.J. Hassila, P. Harlin, U. Wiklund, Rolling Contact Fatigue Crack Propagation
Relative to Anisotropies in Additive Manufactured Inconel 625, Wear, 2019,
pp. 1837–1845.
[33] J.V. Gordon, C.V. Haden, H.F. Nied, R.P. Vinci, D.G. Harlow, Fatigue crack growth
anisotropy, texture and residual stress in austenitic steel made by wire and arc
additive manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A – Struct. Mater. Prop. Microstruct.
Process. 724 (2018) 431–438.
[34] J. Katzer, T. Szatkiewicz, Properties of concrete elements with 3-D printed
formworks which substitute steel reinforcement, Construct. Build. Mater. 201
(2019) 157–161.
[35] A. Kazemian, Y. Xiao, E. Cochran, B. Khoshnevis, Cementitious materials of
construction-scale 3D printing: laboratory testing of fresh printing mixture,
Construct. Build. Mater. 145 (2017) 639–647.
[36] T.T. Le, S.A. Austin, S. Lim, R.A. Buswell, A.G. Gibb, T. Thorpe, Mix design and
fresh properties for high-performance printing concrete, Mater. Struct. 45 (8)
(2012) 1221–1232.
[37] Z. Malaeb, H. Hachem, A. Tourbah, T. Maalouf, N.E. Zarwi, F. Hamzeh, 3D
concrete printing: machine and mix design, Int. J. Civ. Eng. 6 (6) (2015) 14–22.
[38] J. Landers, 3-D Printed Building Highlights Promise of Innovative Materials,
Methods, Abacus Design and Build, 2015.
[39] IBM Corp. Released, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0, IBM Corp,
Armonk, NY, 2017.