Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-018-0053-3

FULL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of fused deposition modeling process parameters

on the mechanical properties of a filled polypropylene
Lu Wang1,2 · J. Elliott Sanders1,2 · Douglas J. Gardner1,2 · Yousoo Han1,2

Received: 29 August 2017 / Accepted: 14 May 2018 / Published online: 22 May 2018
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Few commodity semi-crystalline thermoplastics in neat form are used in fused deposition modeling (FDM) because they
experience dimensional instability (warping) during printing. In this study, a commercially available polypropylene (PP)
filament for FDM processing was used to print tensile and flexural test samples. Three printing parameters were investigated:
(1) extrusion temperature (200, 250 °C), (2) printing speed (45, 90 mm/s) and (3) layer height (0.1, 0.3 mm). Differential
scanning calorimetry (DSC) showed that FDM printed PP samples had fewer α-crystals and more β-crystals than injection-
molded (IM) PP samples. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) indicated that a higher extrusion temperature, slower printing
speed and smaller layer height facilitated the molecular diffusion at the interfaces and created a smaller neck size within the
printed parts. Density measurements showed that IM PP samples were denser than the FDM PP samples. No differences in
density were found among the FDM PP samples. Compared to the IM PP, the mechanical properties decreased less for the
PP printed at higher extrusion temperature (< 11.5%). The FDM PP parts had similar or even increased flexural modulus
compared to the IM PP.

Keywords 3D printing · Additive manufacturing · Printing parameters · Polypropylene · Morphology · Crystal form ·
Density · Specific mechanical properties

1 Introduction format, the printer builds each layer according to the pro-
grammed pattern [1]. AM exceeds conventional manufactur-
Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly referred to as 3D ing techniques in several aspects: (1) it is able to build parts
printing, is a dynamic processing technology that fabricates with complex geometries which is impossible by traditional
parts layer by layer from the bottom up. Usually an object methods; (2) it does not require additional tooling such as
is drawn using software and stored as a stereolithography dies; and (3) it does not require assembly because products
STL format file. The printer software reduces an object are directly fabricated by the printers [2]. Meanwhile, AM
into slices and converts it into a readable format for the 3D has drawbacks too. Different types of parts require different
printer. After converting the designed part into a readable AM techniques. Techniques that can be used for polymers
include stereolithography, selective laser sintering (SLS),
* Lu Wang selective mask sintering (SMS), laminated object manu-
lu.wang@maine.edu facturing (LOM) and fused layer modeling (FLM) or fused
J. Elliott Sanders deposition modeling (FDM) [1]. During FDM processing
jordan.sanders@maine.edu (Fig. 1), a polymer filament is continuously melted in a
Douglas J. Gardner chamber and extruded through a nozzle. After the first layer
douglasg@maine.edu is built, the platform lowers a certain distance to receive the
Yousoo Han deposition of a second layer. By repeating this process, the
yousoo.han@maine.edu final part can be made. Compared to other rapid prototyping
methods (RP), FDM is cheaper and easier to operate [3].
1
School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, 5755 During the printing process, an interface forms when the
Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469‑5755, USA
adjacent laid-down polymer strands come into contact with
2
Advanced Structures and Composites Center, University each other. The interfacial width increases and the interfaces
of Maine, 35 Flagstaff Road, Orono, ME 04469‑5793, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
206
Fig. 1  Configuration of the 3D printer used in this study
gradually disappear as polymer molecular diffusion occurs
resulting in an increase in mechanical properties [4]. The
interface and pores that are generated in an FDM part are
beneficial for cell reproduction, thus making the technology
suitable for medical applications; for example, implants and
tissue engineering [5]. However, voids lower the mechanical
properties of the printed parts compared to their injection-
molded counterparts.
There are commercially available thermoplastics which
can be used for FDM. However, some commodity thermo-
plastics are not widely used in FDM, for instance, isotactic
polypropylene homopolymer (PP). Neat PP is a very ver-
satile polymer and is among the most utilized thermoplas-
tics in commercial production of parts [6, 7]. PP shrinks
rapidly and warps easily during 3D printing, which makes
it unfavorable for the AM process [8]. Adding PP to the
material scope of FDM is desirable and beneficial. A few
papers reported on the production of PP composites by FDM
[9–12]. Investigated printing parameters included deposi-
tion orientation, different infill degrees and layer thickness.
Samples were stronger and stiffer when all the filaments
were printed along the long axis of the sample. The tensile
properties increased as the infill density increased. Layer
thickness was found to insignificantly affect the mechanical
properties of samples.
In this study, we evaluated the effect of layer height (LH),
extrusion temperature (ET) and printing speed (PS) on the
mechanical properties of printed parts using a commercially
available PP filament. Differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC) was used to understand how different processing con-
ditions affected the crystalline form of the samples. Scan-
ning electron microscopy (SEM) was applied to study the
Table 1  Major metals contained Elements Ca
in the PP ash and their
percentages Content (%) 26.4
13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214
inner structure of samples. Mechanical tests were done to
compare the strength and stiffness properties of the printed
samples and their injection-molded counterparts.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Materials
PP homopolymer filament (1.75 mm in diameter), Moplen
HP741T, was purchased from Gizmodorks, Temple City,
CA. The HP741T is nucleated, with a modified molecular
weight and high melt flow index (60 g/10 min at 230 °C/2.16
kg). Its flexural modulus is 1.75 GPa. It features a balance
between rapid cycle time and good mechanical properties.
Food containers are its typical applications. Ash content
(~ 30%) of this PP was determined according to ASTM
D5630-13. Then a metal analysis was done on the ash
according to “Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for
the Northeastern United States”. The major components of
the identified metals in the ash are listed in Table 1. The
density of this PP filament is around 1200 kg/m3.
2.2 Fused deposition modeling (FDM) of PP
The models of testing samples were first drawn in Auto
CAD (2014) according to the dimensions specified in ASTM
D638-14 (Type I) for tensile tests, and ASTM D790-10 for
flexural tests. Those files were saved in an STL format for
further configuration. The 3D printer used for this study was
a Makerbot Replicator 2X Experimental 3D Printer (Maker-
Bot Industries, LLC, NY, USA). Features of this type of 3D
printer are shown in Fig. 1. Compared to other FDM devices,
this device has two extrusion heads, enabling the printing
of two different filaments within one building process. To
start a printed part, the STL file was opened in Makerware
software (Version: 3.9.0), centered, laid flat and printed with
the right-side nozzle. Printing parameters were changed in
the “settings” section of the Makerware software. Advanced
processing parameters were altered in a customized profile.
To achieve a 0° orientation, “infill orientation offset”, “infill
orientation interval”, “solid fill orientation offset” and “solid
fill orientation interval” were set in the customized profile at
90°, 0°, 90° and 0°, respectively. The air gap was changed by
varying the number of “grid spacing multiplier” between 0
and 1. A complete overlap between two adjacent filaments
is achieved by choosing 0; while a simple contact occurs
when 1 is selected. According to the manufacturer, both
K Mg Al Fe Zn
0.02 1.3 0.04 0.03 0.07
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214 207

an extrusion temperature range of (210, 230 °C) and (250,
280 °C) should result in good printing quality. Thus, two
temperatures within those ranges were chosen. A platform
temperature of 130 °C was chosen as it is in accordance
with the upper limit of the printer software. The default
printing speed was 90 mm/s. A slower printing speed of
45 mm/s was chosen for comparison. Infill density was set
to 100% to produce solid samples. The number of shells was
reduced to 1 to minimize its influence on the mechanical
properties. The layer width was fixed at 0.4 mm regardless
of the layer height. To improve the adhesion between the
first PP layer and platform, a piece of office packing tape
(Office ­Depot®, OfficeMax # 24767995) was laid down on
the platform before printing. The total experimental design
is shown in Table 2.
direction from the bottom to the top of the sample. Samples
were sealed in aluminum pans and heated from 25 to 200 °C
at a rate of 10°C/min.
2.5 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
Morphological analyses of the FDM samples were carried
out using a TM 3000 SEM (Hitachi High-Technologies Cor-
poration, Tokyo, Japan). All samples were cryofractured
in liquid nitrogen to prepare the surfaces because either
microtome or hand trimming smeared the surface severely.
Because of the low definition requirement in this research,
no sputter-coating was done before the microscopic observa-
tions. SEM images were taken at an accelerating voltage of
15 kV at various magnifications.

2.3 Injection molding 2.6 Density

The PP filaments were pelletized in a Hellweg MDS 120/150
granulator (Hackensack, NJ). The resulting pellets were then
processed in an injection molder Model #50 “Minijector”
with a ram pressure of 17 MPa at 200 °C and held in the
molds for 10 s to cool. The mold provides a sample with
dimensions specified in ASTM D638-14 (Type I) and ASTM
D790-10. The samples were then put into plastic containers
and stored in desiccators to maintain dryness. Before testing,
samples were conditioned in a chamber for at least 40 h at
23 °C ± 2 °C and 50 ±10% RH.
2.4 Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
Melting behavior of the processed PP was studied by DSC
using a TA Instruments Q 2000 Calorimeter (New Castle,
Delaware, USA). All measurements were performed under
nitrogen (nitrogen flow = 50 mL/min) to avoid degrada-
tion of PP upon heating. The samples were obtained from
a 0.5 mm-thick slice cut from the cross section of each
specimen. The DSC samples covered the whole thickness
An X-ray densitometer (QMS, Model QDP-01) was
used to measure the density profiles of both injection-
molded and printed samples. Sample dimensions were
63.5 × 12.5 × 3.2 mm. Density determination by the scan-
ning system is based on the relationship between X-ray
attenuation and density as expressed in the following equa-
tion [13]:
I∕I0 = exp ⋅(𝜇𝜌t), (1)
where I is the intensity of radiation beam after passing
through the sample, I0 is the intensity of radiation beam
before passing through the sample, µ is the material mass
attenuation coefficient (­ m2/kg), ρ is the sample density (kg/
m3) and t is the sample thickness (m). At least five samples
were tested for each group.
2.7 Mechanical properties
Tensile and flexural tests were performed according to
ASTM D 638-14 and ASTM D 790-10 to obtain data on

Table 2  Experimental design Processing method Denomination ET/°C PS/(mm/min) LH/mm

and sample nomenclature
Injection molding IM – – –
Fused deposition modeling FDM
250/90/0.3 250 90 0.3
250/90/0.1 250 90 0.1
250/45/0.3 250 45 0.3
250/45/0.1 250 45 0.1
200/90/0.3 200 90 0.3
200/90/0.1 200 90 0.1
200/45/0.3 200 45 0.3
200/45/0.1 200 45 0.1

ET extrusion temperature, PS printing speed, LH layer height

13
208
the tensile and flexural properties. Tests were conducted at
room temperature 23 ± 2 °C and 50 ± 10% RH. A universal
testing machine (Instron 5966) with a 10 kN load cell was
used for the tests. An extensometer was mounted to measure
the elongation of the samples. The tensile test speed was set
at 50 mm/min to break the sample within 5 min. The span
for the flexural test was 51 mm. The outer fiber strain rate for
flexural tests was 0.01/min, resulting in a flexural test speed
of 1.4 mm/min. The flexural specimens were positioned
with the bottom facing down. Five replicates of each sample
were tested. The average and standard deviation of Young’s
modulus and strengths from tensile and flexural tests were
calculated. Because printed specimens had voids of different
sizes, to compare the mechanical properties among injec-
tion-molded and printed specimens, their specific mechani-
cal properties were obtained using the following equation:
Specific mechanical properties = mechanical properties∕density.
(2)
2.8 Statistical analysis
The density, tensile and flexural properties and specific
mechanical properties were analyzed using a three-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) along with a student test at
α = 0.05. All the analyses were done using the JMP statisti-
cal analysis program (JMP Statistical Discovery Software
Version 8 2008). A statistical model was used to represent
the properties of PP.
Yijkl = 𝜇 + 𝛼i + 𝛽j + 𝛾k + (𝛼𝛽)ij + (𝛽𝛾)jk + (𝛼𝛾)ik + (𝛼𝛽𝛾)ijk + eijkl ,
(3)
where i = 1,2; j = 1,2, k = 1,2 and l = 1,2,3,4,5. Yijkl is the
mean of each property; µ is the population mean of each
property. The effects of extrusion temperature, printing
speed and layer height on each property were represented
by αi, βj and γk. The effects of interaction between two of
the three factors on each property are represented by (αβ)ij,
(βγ)jk and (αγ)jk. The three-way interaction is represented by
(αβγ)ijk. eijkl is the error for this model. After the ANOVA
test was done, a t test was used to investigate whether sta-
tistically significant differences existed between the IM PP
and the FDM PP samples.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Crystal forms
The DSC curves of the PP samples are shown in Fig. 2.
In each case, at least two endothermic peaks are shown at
around 120 and 165 °C, which correspond to the melting
temperatures of a proprietary ingredient and the α-crystals
in isotactic PP (iPP) [14, 15]. FDM PP samples produced at
13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214
0.7 IM 250/90/0.3 200/90/0.3
0.6 α-crystal
0.5
Heat Flow (W/g)
0.4
0.3 β-crystal
0.2
0.1
0
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Endo Up Temperature (°C)
Fig. 2  DSC results of IM and FDM PP at scanning rate of 10 °C/min
a higher extrusion temperature have less α-crystal character
compared to the IM PP, however, displaying a new peak
around 150 °C. This peak is reported to be the β-crystal
form of PP [14]. Factors causing the formation of β-crystals
include a special nucleating agent and processing strategy
[15, 16]. β-crystals grow faster than α-crystals when crys-
tallized between 100 and 130 °C [11, 14]. In this study,
the printer build platform was set at 130 °C, which favored
β-crystal growth. More detailed description of the formation
of β-crystals during FDM manufacture can be found in this
literature [11]. It is important to point out that the percent-
age of β-crystals is much higher in PP processed at a lower
extrusion temperature. This is because when the extrusion
temperature was set at 250 °C, the crystallization temper-
ature for PP during printing exceeded 130 °C which sup-
pressed β-crystal formation. During the DSC measurements,
possible β-α recrystallization may occur [17, 18]. Also, the
melting enthalpies of β-PP or α-PP were reported with dif-
ferent values caused by different methods of determination
[18]. Therefore, the β-crystal contents of specimens were
determined by X-ray diffraction in a separate study, which
will be referred to during the discussion of the mechanical
properties of printed samples [11].
3.2 Morphology of FDM PP
The micrographs of cryofractured FDM PP surfaces are
shown in Fig. 3. The observed white particles in the SEM
micrographs are attributed to the filler (metal salts) inside
the PP matrix. Each polymer strand laid down is called a
“road”. Generally, “necks” are formed by incomplete diffu-
sion among four adjacent roads as shown in Fig. 4. Several
important observations can be made by comparing groups.
Samples with 0.1 mm layer height have more interfaces, but
a smaller neck size than the samples made with 0.2 mm layer
heights. As the layer height decreased, the distance between
the centers of two adjacent roads (up and down direction)
decreased. The smaller layer height shortened the distance
required to achieve the same degree of diffusion compared
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214
Fig. 3  SEM micrographs of
FDM PP printed using different
parameters
to larger layer height (Fig. 4). Also, the total time for print-
ing a sample increased if layer height was smaller because
the sample had longer heat exposure during printing. There-
fore, if other parameters are controlled, roads with smaller
layer height should have better diffusion at the interfaces
209
and smaller neck sizes. However, in some areas, roads of
smaller layer height do not touch each other. A possible rea-
son for that is the printer does not have enough accuracy to
control layer width when the layer height becomes small
(0.1 mm). The 250 °C extrusion temperature was able to
13
210 Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214

Increasing interfacial width Table 3  Selected values from the ANOVA for densities of PP
Source Degree of Sum of squares F value p value
freedom
Road
Corrected total 39 0.0939
Neck
Model 7 0.031 2.2535
ET 1 0.0148 7.5433 0.0098*
PS 1 0.0027 1.3855 0.2478
Layer height: 0.3 mm
LH 1 0.0081 4.1366 0.0504
Heat
ET × PS 1 0.0024 1.2226 0.2771
Time PS × LH 1 0.0018 0.9275 0.3427
Layer height: 0.1 mm ET × LH 1 0.0000025 0.0013 0.9718
ET × PS × LH 1 0.0011 0.5611 0.4593
Fig. 4  PP molecular diffusion across the road interfaces at different Error 32 0.0629
layer heights
ET extrusion temperature, PS printing speed, LH layer height
*Significant level at α = 0.05
produce denser bottom layers. The first bottom layer was in
contact with the platform that is maintained at 130 °C during
printing. This layer experienced the longest increased tem- that the fillers were not evenly distributed inside the PP. The
perature history and provided enhanced polymer diffusion. A effect of unevenly distributed fillers on the density profiles
250 °C extrusion temperature also increased the interfacial of 3D-printed parts and injection-molded parts is distinct.
width and reduced neck sizes across the whole cross section For the 3D-printed parts, the filament was directly used for
because it enabled the roads to diffuse to a greater extent forming the parts. The density variation of the filament is
[19]. The 45 mm/s printing speed resulted in a larger interfa- reflected in the density of 3D-printed parts as indicated by
cial width and a smaller neck size. When the printing speed
was slower, the total printing time for a sample increased.
Each layer received a longer time of heat exposure. There- 1.25
A
fore, the degree of diffusion was higher compared to the 1.2
AB
AB
B
faster printing speed. B B
Density (kg/m3)

1.15 B
B
3.3 Density profiles 1.1

1.05
As seen in Table 3, among all the printing factors, only 1
extrusion temperature had a significant effect on the density
0.95
of the FDM printed PP. The results in Fig. 5a show that
samples made at 250 °C, except Group 250/45/0.1, were
not significantly different from those printed at 200 °C. The
effect of the printing setting on the density is possibly cov- a Processing methods
ered by the existence of the filler (metal salts) which have a 1.25 A
much higher density than neat PP. As seen in Fig. 5b, even
Group 250/45/0.1 which was the densest printed sample, was 1.2
Density (kg/cm3)

B
less dense than the IM PP. 1.15
Density profiles of the IM and FDM PPs are displayed
1.1
in Fig. 6. Densities of all samples were larger than 1080 kg/
m3. The normal density of PP is around 900 kg/m3. As 1.05
mentioned previously, the presence of the filler (metal
1
salts) increased the density of the samples. These density b IM 250/45/0.1
profiles only represent the portion of parts that encountered Processing methods

the X-ray during the density measurements, so they do not

reflect the overall density profile of each sample. When
determining the density and ash content of the PP filament,
variations were discovered among replicates. The variations
in density and ash content values of the filaments indicate
Fig. 5  Densities of PP from the different FDM processing parameters
(a) and a comparison between the IM PP and a FDM PP (b). “A” and
“B” on top of the bars represent the statistical difference between val-
ues. Values with different letters are significantly different at a confi-
dence level of 95%

13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214 211

IM 250/90/0.3 250/90/0.1 250/45/0.3 250/45/0.1 at 250 °C, regardless of printing speed or layer height,
1400 their density profiles all displayed a similar trend: density
decreased from the bottom to the top of a sample. On the
Density (kg/m3)

1350

1300 contrary, samples printed at 200 °C did not show this trend.
1250 This finding is consistent with the SEM results. At 250 °C,
1200
neck size on the bottom side of the samples was smaller than
those printed at 200 °C. Therefore, the bottom has a higher
1150
density than the top.
1100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
a
Thickness (mm) 3.4 Mechanical properties
IM 200/90/0.3 200/90/0.1 200/45/0.3 200/45/0.1
The results of the ANOVA test on the mechanical proper-
1350
ties of PP are shown in Table 4. For the tensile properties,
the extrusion temperature × printing speed interaction had
Density (kg/m3)

1300

1250
1200
1150
1100
0 0.5 1 1.5
b statistical significance.
Thickness (mm)
Fig. 6  Density profiles of FDM PP samples made using different pro-
cess parameters and compared to IM PP samples
their error bars in Fig. 5a. For the injection-molded parts, the
filament was first pelletized. Pellets from different sections
of the filament were hand blended before molding, which
contributed to a more homogenized part density as indicated
by the error bar in Fig. 5b. Therefore, it was not surprising to
see the density values of some of the 3D-printed parts being
higher than the injection-molded parts as shown in Fig. 6.
Compared to IM PP, which showed consistent density across
the thickness of the samples, the density values of FDM
PP fluctuated throughout the thickness. For samples printed
a significant influence on the mechanical properties. For the
flexural strength, the extrusion temperature × printing speed
interaction and the printing speed × layer height interaction
showed significant effects. Regarding the flexural modulus
of elasticity, only printing speed was a significant processing
2 2.5 3
factor. No other individual factors or interactions showed
The mechanical properties of PP samples are shown in
Table 5. The flexural strength of PP, either IM or FDM,
was 1.5–2 times larger than the tensile strengths, which was
also reported in a previous study on the mechanical behavior
of polymer and polymer composites [20]. According to the
“weakest link” theory, the tensile strength is the strength
where the weakest element reaches its limit and breaks [21].
The flexural strength is the stress on the surface of a sample
when it fails. Therefore, the flexural property of a surface
affects the whole sample greatly [21]. This phenomenon is
especially prominent in FDM manufacturing. As observed
in the SEM micrographs, the FDM PP sample has dense
bottom layers attributed to the annealing which increases the
properties of the polymer [11]. The flexural modulus of the
IM PP was close to the values reported in the material data

Table 4  Selected values from Sources DF Sum of squares p value

the ANOVA for the mechanical
properties of PP TS TM FS FM TS TM FS FM

Corrected total 39 38.98 1.68 75.92 0.80

Model 7 32.57 1.31 65.43 0.31
ET 1 28.06 1.05 44.94 0.048 < 0.0001* < 0.0001* < 0.0001* 0.088
PS 1 0.65 0.0006 1.02 0.094 0.081 0.082 0.0867 0.019*
LH 1 0.02 0.045 14.64 0.035 0.75 0.057 < 0.0001* 0.145
ET × PS 1 0.09 0.034 1.94 0.064 0.51 0.097 0.021* 0.072
PS × LH 1 0.18 0.011 2.21 0.04 0.35 0.34 0.014* 0.118
ET × LH 1 3.19 0.156 0.63 0.022 0.0004* 0.0008* 0.18 0.243
ET × PS × LH 1 0.38 0.014 0.049 0.017 0.18 0.28 0.7 0.307
Error 32 6.41 0.37 10.49 0.49

TS tensile strength, TM tensile modulus, FS flexural strength, FM flexural modulus

*Significant level at α = 0.05

13
212 Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214

Table 5  Mechanical properties Processing method Tensile properties Flexural properties

of PP samples
Strength (MPa) Modulus (GPa) Strength (MPa) Modulus (GPa)

IM 17.5 (0.4) – 2.7 (0.04) – 28.4 (0.7) – 1.6 (0.1) –

250/90/0.3 15.5 (0.2) Ba 2.5 (0.07) AB 25.6 (0.5) B 1.6 (0.1) C
250/90/0.1 15.9 (0.7) AB 2.6 (0.1) A 27.1 (0.2) A 1.7 (0.1) ABC
250/45/0.3 15.6 (0.2) B 2.64 (0.05) A 26.9 (0.9) A 1.9 (0.1) A
250/45/0.1 16.4 (0.7) A 2.7 (0.2) A 27.5 (0.8) A 1.8 (0.1) AB
200/90/0.3 14.1 (0.6) D 2.4 (0.06) BC 23.7 (0.3) C 1.6 (0.1) C
200/90/0.1 13.8 (0.1) D 2.2 (0.1) D 25.6 (0.4) B 1.7 (0.09) ABC
200/45/0.3 14.8 (0.3) C 2.3 (0.1) C 24.0 (0.2) C 1.6 (0.1) BC
200/45/0.1 13.8 (0.3) D 2.2 (0.1) D 25.0 (0.6) B 1.7 (0.1) ABC

Values with different letters are significantly different at a confidence level of 95%
a
Capital letters behind each value represent the statistical difference

sheet. The tensile modulus of both PP samples was signifi-
cantly higher than the flexural modulus samples. One thing
to note is the testing speed for tensile properties was set at
50 mm/min instead of 5 mm/min. This resulted in a higher
tensile modulus value because the polymer is more elastic
than viscous at higher testing speeds.
The mechanical property changes of FDM PP compared
to injection-molded PP are shown in Fig. 7. Among all the
three factors studied, extrusion temperature had the most
obvious effect on the mechanical property reduction com-
pared to injection molding. Higher extrusion temperatures
lead to a smaller mechanical property loss. As was previ-
ously reported, the relative proportions of β-crystals in the
injection-molded PP, PP printed at 200 °C and PP printed at
250 °C were around 5, 10 and 75% [11]. The β-crystals and
α-crystals of PP have different modes of chain packing [18].
More complicated chain orientation was discovered in the
β-crystals [18]. Compared to α-PP, β-PP has a lower modu-
lus of elasticity and yield strength [18, 22]. The existence
of larger voids and more β-crystals in PP printed at 200 °C
make it weaker than PP printed at 250 °C. Interestingly,
almost all the FDM groups exhibited higher flexural modu-
lus than IM PP. Available literature on flexural properties of
FDM polymers is sparse. One study indicated that the flex-
ural modulus of FDM ABS was close to typical values of IM
ABS [23]. In another article, the bottom layer of FDM PLA
was found to have a higher crystallinity compared to the
rest of the part [5]. The properly annealed bottom layer may
account for the high flexural modulus of FDM PP. Among
all groups, Group 250/45/0.1 is comparable in mechanical
properties to IM PP except that its tensile strength is lower
by 6% (Fig. 8).
The percentage change of the specific mechanical proper-
ties of IM and FDM PP is shown in Fig. 9. Clearly, the spe-
cific mechanical property loss is smaller than the mechani-
cal property loss. The influence of extrusion temperature
on mechanical properties is discernable. Higher extrusion
temperature leads to less mechanical property loss. How-
ever, the influence of extrusion temperature was less when
the samples were normalized with respect to density. Group
250/90/0.1 showed slightly better overall specific mechanical
properties compared to the other groups printed at 250 °C.

Fig. 7  Percentage change in tensile strength tensile modulus

mechanical properties of FDM 20 flexural strength flexural modulus
PP compared to IM PP 15
Change percentage (%)

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
250/90/0.3 250/90/0.1 250/45/0.3 250/45/0.1 200/90/0.3 200/90/0.1 200/45/0.3 200/45/0.3

13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214 213

tensile modulus flexrual modulus Specific tensile modulus specific flexural modulus

tensile strength flexural strength specific tensile strength specific flexural strength

Specific modulus (106*N·m/kg)

Specific strength (103*N·m/kg)

3 A A 35 3 30
A A 30
A A A
2.5 2.5 25
Modulus (GPa)

Strength (MPa)
A 25
2 A 2 20
A B 20 A A A B
1.5 1.5 15
15
1 1 10
10
0.5 5 0.5 5
0 0 0 0
IM 250/45/0.1 IM 250/90/0.1

Fig. 8  Comparisons of the mechanical properties between IM and Fig. 10  Comparisons of specific mechanical properties between IM
FDM PP (Group 250/45/0.1). “A” and “B” on top of the bars repre- and FDM PP (Group 250/90/0.1). “A” and “B” on top of bars repre-
sent the statistically significant difference. Values with different let- sent the statistical difference. Values with different letters are signifi-
ters are significantly different at a confidence level of 95% cantly different at a confidence level of 95%

Figure 10 shows that Group 250/90/0.1 is stronger than IM
PP, with a 16% enhancement in specific flexural modulus.
4 Conclusions
In this study, three 3D-printing processing parameters,
extrusion temperature, printing speed and layer height,
were explored to evaluate their influence on the mechanical
properties of FDM PP. The results obtained in this study
clearly indicate that FDM, with proper processing control,
has the capacity to make parts that are equally strong to
their injection-molded counterparts. The specific mechanical
properties of the FDM parts are mostly higher than those of
their injection-molded counterparts. FDM has the potential
to be used for direct manufacturing, instead of prototyping,
especially for lightweight applications.
DSC revealed that FDM PP samples had α and β-crystal
forms, while IM PP only had α-crystals. SEM results showed
that higher extrusion temperature, slower printing speed and
smaller layer height resulted in denser internal structures
with an increased interfacial width. FDM PP parts were
lighter than injection-molded PP. PP printed at 250 °C was
denser than PP printed at 200 °C. Compared to the injection-
molded PP, FDM PP parts had weaker tensile properties and
flexural strength mostly because the interfaces in printed
PP acted as stress-concentrating areas, initiating breakage
during mechanical testing. PP printed at 250 °C showed a
smaller decrease in mechanical properties compared to IM
PP than PP printed at 200 °C. The mechanical properties
of Group 250/45/0.1 were not significantly different from
those of IM PP, except that its tensile strength was weaker by
6%. The specific mechanical properties of Group 250/90/0.1
parts revealed no difference from IM PP, except that its spe-
cific flexural modulus was significantly higher by 16%.

Fig. 9  Change percentages of specific tensile strength specific tensile modulus

the specific mechanical proper- specific flexural strength specific flexural modulus
30.0
ties of FDM PP compared to
IM PP 25.0

20.0
Change percentage (%)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

13
214
Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by the Maine
Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station (MAFES) project ME0-M-
8-00527-13 and the USDA ARS Forest Products Research Agreement
58-0202-4-003. The authors thank Joshua Kovach for preparing the
CAD drawings of the testing samples.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding au-
thor states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Wendel B, Rietzel D, Kühnlein F, Feulner R, Hülder G,
Schmachtenberg E (2008) Additive processing of polymers. Mac-
romol Mater Eng 293:799–809
2. Vaezi M, Chianrabutra S, Mellor B, Yang S (2013) Multiple mate-
rial additive manufacturing –Part 1: a review. Virtual Phys Proto-
typ 8:19–50
3. Korpela J, Kokkari A, Korhonen H, Malin M, Närhi T, Seppälä
J (2013) Biodegradable and bioactive porous scaffold structures
prepared using fused deposition modeling. J Biomed Mater Res
Part B Appl Biomater 101:610–619
4. Kim YH, Wool RP (1983) A theory of healing at a polymer-pol-
ymer interface. Macromolecules 16:1115–1120
5. Drummer D, Cifuentes-Cuellar S, Rietzel D (2012) Suitability
of PLA/TCP for fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp J
18:500–507
6. Rosato DV, Rosato MG, Schott NR (2001) Plastics technology
handbook, volume 1: introduction-properties-fabrication-pro-
cesses. Momentum Press, NY
7. Harper CA (2000) Modern plastics handbook. McGraw-Hill, NY
8. Wang L, Gramlich WM, Gardner DJ, Han Y, Tajvidi M (2018)
Spray-dried cellulose nanofibril-reinforced polypropylene com-
posites for extrusion-based additive manufacturing: nonisother-
mal crystallization kinetics and thermal expansion. J Compos Sci
2(1):7. https​://doi.org/10.3390/jcs20​10007​
9. Carneiro OS, Silva AF, Gomes R (2015) Fused deposition mod-
eling with polypropylene. Mater Design 83:768–776
10. Stoof D, Pickering K (2018) Sustainable composite fused deposi-
tion modelling filament using recycled pre-consumer polypropyl-
ene. Compos Part B 135:110–118
13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2018) 3:205–214
11. Wang L, Gardner DJ (2017) Effect of fused layer modeling (FLM)
processing parameters on impact strength of cellular polypropyl-
ene. Polymer 113:74–80
12. Milosevic M, Stoof D, Pickering KL (2017) Characterizing the
mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling natural fiber
recycled polypropylene composites. J Compos Sci 1:7
13. Jeong GY (2005) Fracture behaviour of wood plastic composite
(WPC). Dissertation, Louisiana State University
14. Tordjeman P, Robert C, Marin G, Gerard P (2001) The effect of
α, β crystalline structure on the mechanical properties of polypro-
pylene. Eur Phys J E Soft Matter 4:459–465
15. Bourbigot S, Garnier L, Revel B, Duquesne S (2013) Characteri-
zation of the morphology of iPP/sPP blends with various compo-
sitions. Express Polym Lett 7:224–237
16. Xiao W, Wu P, Feng J, Yao R (2009) Influence of a novel
β-nucleating agent on the structure, morphology, and nonisother-
mal crystallization behavior of isotactic polypropylene. J Appl
Polym Sci 111:1076–1085
17. Li JX, Cheung WL, Jia D (1999) A study on the heat of fusion of
β-polypropylene. Polymer 40:1219–1222
18. Papageorgiou DG, Chrissafis K, Bikiaris DN (2015) β-Nucleated
polypropylene: processing, properties and nanocomposites. Polym
Rev 55(4):596–629
19. Sun Q, Rizvi GM, Bellehumeur CT, Gu P (2008) Effect of pro-
cessing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer fila-
ments. Rapid Prototyp J 14:72–80
20. Landel RF, Nielsen LE (1993) Mechanical properties of polymers
and composites. Marcel Dekker, Inc, NY
21. Hodgkinson JM (2000) Mechanical testing of advanced fiber com-
posites. CRC press, Boca Raton, FL
22. Varga J (2002) β-modification of isotactic polypropylene: prepara-
tion, structure, processing, properties, and application. J Macro-
mol Sci 41(4–6):1121–1171
23. Ning F, Cong W, Qiu J, Wei J, Wang S (2015) Additive manufac-
turing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using
fused deposition modeling. Compos Part B-Eng 80:369–378
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.