Review article

Proc IMechE Part E:

J Process Mechanical Engineering
Multi-material additive manufacturing 1–16
© IMechE 2024
via fused deposition modeling 3D printing: Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
A systematic review on the material DOI: 10.1177/09544089231223316
journals.sagepub.com/home/pie

feeding mechanism

Zhaogui Wang1, Lihan Wang1, Feng Tang2 and Jingdong Chen3

Abstract
The rapid advancements in fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing methods have unlocked new opportunities in
multi-material additive manufacturing (AM). This technique offers a viable solution for creating high-performance, multi-
functional graded materials, parts, and tooling. Despite the extensive efforts invested in exploring the potential of the
FDM-type multi-material additive approach, there is a noticeable lack of discussion specifically centered around the mater-
ial feeding mechanism of this extrusion-based 3D printing method. This work provides a systematic review on the current
studies related to the multi-material FDM 3D printing. It is found that the interlayer adhesion quality of different feedstock
materials is a first and foremost feature in determining the strength of the entire print. To this end, we particularly focus
on analyzing the feeding system of multiple materials and the strategy for material alternation. From our analytical eval-
uations, it is noticed that the single-nozzle/multi-feed and multi-nozzle/multi-feed FDM printers present unique pros. and
cons., respectively. Inspired by multi-material applications of direct ink writing extrusion-based 3D printing, we also sug-
gest to choose a suitable method based on the material rheology and thermal properties of the constituent materials. This
can be a chance to gain further benefits from the multi-material AM.

Keywords
Multi-material additive manufacturing, fused deposition modeling, material feeding mechanism, interlayer adhesion,
material alternation

Date received: 19 June 2023; accepted: 4 December 2023

Highlight may further enhance the capabilities and functionality

• The emergence of multi-material FDM technology
expands the possibilities for innovation and optimiza-
tion in additive manufacturing, enabling the production
of multi-functional and customized 3D-printed objects.
• Interlayer adhesion between different constituent mate-
rials is a key factor that determines the mechanical per-
formance of multi-material FDM productions. This
adhesion is significantly affected by the strategies
employed for material alternation.
• Single-nozzle/multi-feed and multi-nozzle/multi-feed
systems are the primary setups for multi-material FDM.
Each system has its pros. and cons. The single-nozzle
system requires less time to finish material alternation,
while the multi-nozzle system provides a higher degree
of manufacturing accuracy.
• Despite the challenges associated with material alterna-
tion and limitations of printing systems, continuous
development and research in multi-material FDM tech-
nology offer promising opportunities. For instance, cor-
relating the rheology and thermal properties of feedstock
materials with advancements in feeding mechanisms
of printed parts.
Introduction
Extrusion-based 3D printing
Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3D
printing, is a rapid prototyping technology that transforms
three-dimensional models into solid objects through mater-
ial stacking. Unlike traditional subtractive manufacturing
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, Liaoning, China
2
Houston International Institute, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian,
Liaoning, China
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering &
Computer Science, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA
Corresponding author:
Zhaogui Wang, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering College, Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian, Liaoning 116026, China.
Email: zhaogui_wang@dlmu.edu.cn
2 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
techniques, 3D printing offers lower production costs1 and
enables the production of complex models within a short
period by employing a layer-by-layer manufacturing
approach.2–5 As a result, 3D printing technology has
found widespread applications across various industries.6–10
Among the numerous 3D printing techniques, fused
deposition modeling (FDM) is one of the most commonly
used methods. FDM technology relies on the solidification
of thermoplastic polymer-based materials through the
process of melting and extrusion. The working principle
involves feeding a thermoplastic filament into a nozzle
equipped with a heating module. The molten material is
then extruded through the nozzle and deposited onto a pre-
heated material substrate. The nozzle’s movement path is
generated based on a pre-sliced 3D model. Eventually,
the molten material solidifies and accumulates layer by
layer, forming the desired physical model,11 as illustrated
in Figure 1. Due to its convenience, cost-effectiveness, and
high manufacturing efficiency, FDM technology has
found extensive applications in the aerospace,12,13 auto-
motive,14–17 and medical fields.18–20
The precision and mechanical performances of FDM
printed parts are critical factors that affect their reliability
in practical applications. The dimensional errors resulting
from component deformation and shrinkage during the
printing process can be attributed to factors such as
print parameters and environmental conditions.21 To
address such issues, process parameters optimizations
are introduced. Finally, the improved quality of FDM pro-
ducts gained the favor in the aerospace industry for
rapidly producing lightweight and robust components.
Notably, NASA’s Mars rover employs approximately
70 thermoplastic parts.22 Moreover, general electric has
also employed AM in the production of novel CFM
LEAP aircraft engines, reducing 20 components to just
one and thereby significantly reducing the engine’s
weight.23 In the medical application field, particularly in
pediatrics, individual patient variations in weight and
age result in varying medication requirements. FDM 3D
printing facilitates the creation of personalized dosages
for pediatric medications, thus facilitating precision medi-
cine.24 Consequently, extensive research has been con-
ducted on the coupling relationship between FDM
Figure 1. Schematic paradigm of fused deposition modeling.
process parameters and the quality of printed materials.
For example, printing temperature and speed can influ-
ence the dimensional accuracy and tensile strength of
polylactic acid (PLA) parts.25 The raster angle and layer
thickness of printing parameters also have a significant
impact on the mechanical properties of produced
parts.26,27 Dey et al.28 investigated the influence of
FDM process parameters on part quality and mechanical
performance. Deswal et al.29 utilized a combination of
statistical tools such as response surface methodology-
genetic algorithm (RSM-GA), artificial neural network
(ANN), and artificial neural network-genetic algorithm
(ANN-GA) in MATLAB to optimize important process
parameters (layer thickness, build direction, infill
density, and number of contours) for improving the
dimensional accuracy of FDM parts. Ferretti et al. con-
ducted numerous printing experiments and established
mathematical models to optimize the defects occurring
during the printing process, thereby enhancing the mech-
anical performance of the parts.30 Zhang et al.31 applied
the Taguchi method combined with fuzzy comprehensive
evaluation to optimize four FDM process parameters (line
width compensation, extrusion speed, infill speed, and
layer thickness) for reducing dimensional errors and
warping deformation in FDM parts. Jackson et al.32 inves-
tigated the comprehensive effects of retraction speed,
deposition angle, and number of walls on the dimensional
accuracy and mechanical strength of 3D-printed PLA
parts, noting that retraction speed affects the adhesion
between filaments, thereby influencing surface quality
and mechanical performance, and they obtained the
optimal printing parameters through tensile tests.
Mohamed et al.33 employed Q-optimal RSM to study
the influence of key FDM parameters on printing time,
material consumption, and dynamic flexural modulus,
and provided optimal printing parameter settings.
Chacón et al.34 explored the effects of sample orientation,
layer thickness, and feed rate on the mechanical properties
of low-cost FDM 3D-printed PLA samples through three-
point bending and tensile tests, deriving relevant printing
guidelines. Recent reviews, such as Baechle-Clayton
et al.,35 Rajan et al.,36 Gao et al.,37 Zharylkassyn
et al.,38 Castillo et al.,39 Khan et al.,40 Tümer and
Erbil,41 have also conducted systematic analyses on the
printing parameters of FDM. In conclusion, by adjusting
relevant printing parameters, the performance of parts
can be further improved. However, the inherent limita-
tions of material’s mechanical properties cannot be
changed through parameter optimization alone, necessi-
tating the introduction of materials with superior perform-
ance to overcome these limitations.
Pursuing better performances: motivation of
multi-material additive manufacturing
Modification of polymer filament materials to improve the
performance of parts fabricated using FDM is a common
optimization strategy. For instance, the most commonly
Wang et al.
used material in the FDM process is PLA due to its high
success rate in printing, low cost, and biodegradable
nature, making it widely utilized in FDM applications.
However, the limitations of PLA, such as its high brittle-
ness, low toughness, and poor mechanical properties,
restrict its range of applications. Many studies have
focused on preparing PLA composites with different addi-
tives to effectively address the shortcomings of pure
PLA.41 Przekop et al.42 incorporated graphite into PLA
to create PLA composites for manufacturing wear-resistant
parts. Caroline et al.43 improved the crystallinity of PLA by
surface-modifying microcrystalline cellulose with a titanate
coupling agent and then preparing composite materials
with PLA. Liu et al.44 prepared a binary blend of PLA/
crosslinked polyurethane (CPU) and toughened PLA
using CPU. Dai et al.45 enhanced the toughness of PLA
by forming a ternary blend with polyethylene glycol,
PLA, and a nucleating agent, which decreased the glass
transition temperature (Tg) and increased the crystallinity
rate and speed. Liang et al.46 developed PLA reinforced
with carbon fibers and graphene, significantly improving
the mechanical properties of PLA. However, in the case
of single-material FDM 3D-printed products, the use of
only one material throughout the molding process limits
the reinforcement to a single property. To enable FDM fab-
ricated parts to possess more complex functionalities and
adapt to more demanding working conditions, it is impera-
tive to adopt multi-material synergistic AM. By incorporat-
ing multiple materials into the printing process, it becomes
possible to achieve enhanced performance and multi-
functionality in the manufactured components. This
approach enables the integration of different materials
with diverse properties, allowing for the creation of com-
posite structures with tailored mechanical, thermal, elec-
trical, or chemical characteristics. The implementation of
multi-material synergistic AM in FDM opens up new pos-
sibilities for the production of highly functional parts that
can withstand challenging operating environments.
In conventional manufacturing techniques, producing
components with multiple materials involves manufactur-
ing individual parts separately and then joining them
through welding, adhesive bonding, etc. These discon-
tinuous approaches inevitably introduce defects, leading
Figure 2. Schematic paradigm of multi-material FFF process: (a) multi-filament-feeding and (b) multi-nozzle.54
3
to lower joint strength and reduced lifespan.47AM, on
the other hand, produces parts gradually by adding mater-
ial layer by layer continuously. This extrusion-based
manufacturing approach offers greater freedom in
design and production, making it possible to fabricate
intricately structured internal components.48 The multi-
material FDM process builds upon the foundation of
traditional single-material FDM. It combines various
materials by stacking them at different positions within
a part based on the design model. This enables the cre-
ation of multi-functional components with diverse mater-
ial properties in a single manufacturing step.49 This
significantly enhances the flexibility of part design and
production.50 Moreover, the multi-material FDM process
eliminates the need for separate preparation and subsequent
bonding or welding assembly steps that are inherent in
single-material fabrication. This circumvents additional
issues associated with multi-step processing, such as
stress concentration at welding locations. Unlike traditional
manufacturing, AM greatly reduces processing time and
lowers production costs.51
With the rapid advancement of hardware in FDM 3D
printing, the concept of multi-material simultaneous FDM
technology has been introduced.52,53 In general, multi-
material FDM involves the simultaneous extrusion of mul-
tiple plastic filaments, as shown in Figure 2. This approach
allows for the printing of objects in various colors, with the
ability to control the color transition of the object, as
depicted in Figure 3.55 Additionally, multi-material 3D
printing enables the use of water-soluble support materials
for printed parts (see, e.g. Figure 4). In FDM, over-hanging
features may need to be supported by a structure, whose
style can be either break-away or water-soluble support
structures.57 After part printing, the formers are manually
removed by stripping them from the part surface, while
the latter are dissolved in a water/solvent solution that
does not interact with the part’s structural material. The
water-soluble supporting structures, unlike the break-away,
can be located in deeply recessed regions, and can also be in
contact with small features, as they are preserved. This sig-
nificantly simplifies post-processing and expands the possi-
bilities for manufacturing intricate internal cavities.58
Furthermore, the printing process in multi-material FDM
4 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
Figure 3. Print color objects by melting deposition.55
Figure 4. Two-material FDM with water-soluble supporting filament for a complex geometry.56
can accommodate different materials with varied function-
alities at different locations of the same part, based on user
requirements. This capability allows for the optimization of
material distribution according to the specific load-bearing
characteristics of the part, maximizing the functional
advantages of each component material,59 as illustrated in
Figure 5. Ribeiro et al.60 discovered that multi-material
FDM printed products exhibit superior mechanical per-
formance compared to single-material molded parts, high-
lighting it as an effective method for improving the
mechanical properties of manufactured components.
Wang et al. prepared PLA/thermoplastic urethane (TPU)
sandwich specimens with different TPU volume fractions
and material arrangements and conducted tensile tests.
The data showed that the tensile strength of the sandwich
structure decreased with an increase in TPU volume frac-
tion. Additionally, samples with PLA as the outer shell
exhibited higher yield stress and elastic modulus when
the TPU volume fraction was the same.61 Emila et al. inves-
tigated the bonding strength between TPU filament and
PLA filament through mixed FDM preparation.62 Dong
et al.63 successfully fabricated continuous fiber-reinforced
electrically induced shape memory composites using a
PLA/TPU/carbon nanotube (CNT) hybrid nanocomposite
through 3D printing technology. Huang et al.64
3D-printed wave-shaped specimens using a PLA/TPU/
multi-walled carbon-nanotubes (MWCNT) hybrid filament
and conducted mechanical tests. León et al.65 prepared mix-
tures of TPU and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
with different mass fractions and observed that a certain
amount of TPU enhanced interlayer adhesion. Lopes
et al.66 discussed the mechanical properties of PLA, TPU,
polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and multi-material
printed samples. Beca et al.67 investigated the differences
in mechanical properties between single-nozzle and multi-
nozzle FDM-produced sandwich multi-material structures.
Wang et al.
Figure 5. Design process of filled closed-cell lattice structure (a) open-cell design, (b) opening are closed with a thin wall (M),
(c) hybrid FFF process for printing and filling, and (d) global closed lattice structure.59
Yap et al.68 prepared ABS/polycarbonate composite speci-
mens with appropriate parameters and conducted mechan-
ical tests, showing improved mechanical properties
compared to pure ABS. Ahmed et al.69 fabricated stacked
composite specimens of carbon fiber-reinforced PLA
(CF-PLA)/ABS and found that the printed composite
boards exhibited greater ultimate strength than pure
CF-PLA or pure ABS samples in tensile tests. Zhang
et al.70 studied the influence of different material content
gradients on the overall mechanical properties. Singh
et al.71 performed multi-material fused deposition of three
different thermoplastic materials, ABS, PLA, and high-
impact polystyrene and conducted mechanical performance
tests on the specimens. There is a wide range of research on
multi-material printing.72–76
This article summarizes research studies and review
articles related to multi-material AM that have been men-
tioned in previous articles or similar concepts, but there
are still many gaps in the discussion of material feed
mechanisms. Since FDM is one of the most popular
manufacturing methods in AM, this technology is evalu-
ated specifically. From discussions shown above, it is
seen that multi-material FDM harnesses the performance
advantages of multiple materials, addressing the issue of
single-material mechanical properties in manufactured
parts. It has proven to be an effective method for enhan-
cing the mechanical performance of fabricated compo-
nents. By incorporating different materials with diverse
characteristics, such as TPU, PLA, ABS, and others,
through careful material selection and arrangement,
researchers have achieved improvements in tensile
strength, yield stress, elastic modulus, interlayer adhesion,
and overall mechanical properties. Multi-material FDM
opens up new possibilities for creating complex struc-
tures, achieving color gradients, utilizing water-soluble
support materials, and optimizing material distribution
based on specific load-bearing requirements. The continu-
ous development of multi-material FDM technology
offers a promising avenue for advancing the capabilities
and functionality of 3D-printed objects in various indus-
tries and applications. The insights presented in our manu-
script can be applied to optimize processing parameters
and hardware configurations, ultimately reducing tech-
nical barriers and material/time costs associated with the
5
production of multi-functional parts. Our primary focus
is on relevant studies published within the past 5 years,
a period characterized by rapid developments in multi-
material advanced manufacturing. For references
beyond this timeframe, readers can consult other review
works (e.g. Bandyopadhyay and Heer,47 Han and Lee,77
Wei and Li78,79 as cited). Additionally, most metal-based
AM processes are predominantly centered around laser
melting, which markedly differs from the material extru-
sion deposition process utilized in FDM (our primary
focus here). In reference to this segment, readers who
are inclined may peruse additional pertinent scholarly
works.77,78
Key in multi-mat FDM: interlayers
We note that the essence of multi-material FDM does not
differ significantly from traditional FDM, which means
that process parameters still play a decisive role in the
quality of the manufactured parts. Due to the layer-
by-layer stacking nature of the FDM process, the interface
strength between layers is an inherent factor that directly
affects the performance of the printed parts.77 For multi-
material FDM 3D printing, it can be anticipated that the
interface quality between alternating layers of materials
with different macro and micro properties will have a
more pronounced impact on the overall mechanical per-
formance of the printed parts. For instance, Lopes et al.
conducted tests on PLA, TPU, PET, and other materials,
manufacturing tensile samples with sandwich structures
formed through multiple overlapping layers using FDM
technology. They proposed that the quality of different
material boundary interfaces has a significant influence
on the tensile strength.66 Similarly, Singh et al.71 con-
ducted similar research and pointed out that having
similar specific heat between materials is a critical factor
for successful multi-material FDM manufacturing.
Many researchers have focused on studying the interface
issues in multi-material printing, aiming to enhance the
interface bonding strength and improve the shortcomings
of multi-material printing through various methods.
Lin et al. proposed a single-layer temperature-adjusting
transition method, where the first layer of the second mater-
ial is extruded at a slightly higher temperature than the
6 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
Figure 6. Schematic of bond formation. (a) Idealized cross-section of FDM parts and (b) cross-sections of PCL/PLA parts with
different bonding-layer temperatures.79 PCL: polycaprolactone; PLA: polylactic acid.
normal FDM temperature during material transition to fill
the cooled interlayer voids, as shown in Figure 6. This
method improves the tensile strength between alternating
layers of polycaprolactone (PCL)/PLA sandwich struc-
tures by 28%.79 With an elevation in the bonding-layer
temperature, there was an observed increase in the bond
strength between PCL and PLA, likely owing to
improved adhesion. However, in the case of PCL
bonded with PCL, a converse trend was noticed. Here,
the heightened temperature led to a reduction in bond
strength, which could be attributed to a decrease in the
thickness of the bonding layer. This phenomenon war-
rants further investigation to comprehend the underlying
mechanisms at play. Yin et al.81 found that when the tem-
perature of the material substrate increased from 30 °C to
68 °C during the alternating deposition of ABS and TPU,
the tensile strength between TPU/ABS layers increased
by 93%. Sunil et al. discovered that annealing post-
processing can effectively restore the reduced interlayer
tensile strength of 3D-printed composite materials.
Through annealing post-processing, the interlayer
tensile strength of 3D-printed PETG-CF and PLA-CF
composite materials increased by three and two times,
respectively, reaching the interlayer tensile strength of
their corresponding pure polymers. Annealing post-
processing also improved the interlayer Young’s
modulus and ductility of 3D-printed composite materi-
als.82 Ravi et al. reported a pre-deposition heating
method based on near-infrared laser to locally heat the
existing layers near the nozzle before contacting with
the extrudate and heated region. This method in the
process raises the interlayer interface temperature above
the critical temperature to increase interdiffusion, thereby
enhancing interlayer bonding strength. Three-point
bending tests demonstrated a 50% increase in interlayer
adhesive strength for parts manufactured using this
method,83 as shown in Figure 7. Andreu et al. proposed
a thermo-mechanical method where a heated roller is
installed to press the molten deposited layer onto the pre-
vious layer during printing, as shown in Figure 8. This
method improves the contact between layers, and the
heated roller enhances thermal diffusion capability and
reduces cooling rate, effectively improving interface
bonding. Experimental analysis was conducted to
examine the influence of roller pressure, speed, and tem-
perature on the bonding strength. Tensile tests showed a
38.8% increase in maximum ultimate tensile stress,
a 19.4% increase in maximum tensile modulus, and a
359.6% increase in maximum tensile strain. Three-point
bending and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
tests revealed a maximum increase of 13.5% in
maximum bending stress, a 20.76% increase in bending
modulus, and an 11.9% increase in bending strain for
bending tests. DSC analysis showed an increase in crys-
tallinity from 2.7% to 8.6%, and computed tomography
scans demonstrated a significant reduction in porosity,
improving geometric accuracy.84 In addition, a large
number of experimental studies have investigated the
influence mechanism of FDM process parameters on
the interfacial bonding strength of materials.85–89
Based on the research findings from the aforemen-
tioned literature, it is evident that the interlayer bonding
strength of multi-material FDM fabricated parts can dir-
ectly and effectively improve the overall strength of the
Wang et al.
Figure 7. The laser local pre-deposition heating approach.83
Figure 8. Effect of heated roller on inter-filament surface contact and pressure-driven inter-filament neck growth.84
manufactured components, thereby enabling the technol-
ogy to be more widely applied. In order to optimize the
process parameters for fabrication, it is essential to have
a clear understanding of the multi-material FDM fabrica-
tion process. The remaining sections of this paper will
provide a systematic explanation of key fabrication
steps such as the multi-material feeding method and the
alternating material arrangement.
Multi-material feeding mechanisms
Multi-material AM achieved through FDM 3D printing
essentially involves the introduction of multiple feed
mechanisms for different feedstock materials. The
process principles of multi-material FDM printing and
single-material FDM printing are fundamentally the
same, both involving the layer-by-layer deposition of
thermoplastic materials through melting and extrusion.
Based on the original feeding method of FDM, we can
categorize it into two macroscopic approaches: multi-
material supply with a single-nozzle extrusion and multi-
material supply with multiple nozzle extrusion (cf.
Figure 2).
7
Single-nozzle/multi-feed system
The operation of a single-nozzle multi-material FDM
printer involves the coordination between multiple
filament-feeding extruders and a single nozzle. In the
case of a single-nozzle deposition, the temperature at
the nozzle’s heating end remains constant throughout
the entire printing process due to the presence of only
one heating element. Consequently, this deposition
method is suitable for printing materials with similar
melting temperatures. It should be noted that although
FDM 3D printers allow users to manually adjust the
nozzle’s temperature during the forming process,
changes in nozzle temperature require a certain amount
of time to take effect. Moreover, the stability of the
molten material flow inside the nozzle is compromised
during temperature variations, leading to a decrease in
extrusion quality and ultimately impacting the surface
quality and mechanical properties of the printed parts.
Specifically, the multi-material additive process can be
achieved even with a common single-nozzle/ single-
extruder printer, i.e. during multi-material 3D printing,
the user can achieve the alternating feeding of multiple
materials by simply switching the filaments manually.
8 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
Alternatively, it is also doable by using pre-prepared com-
posite filaments, where two materials are pre-integrated
into one continuous filament. For example, León et al.
developed TPU/ABS composite filaments in certain pro-
portions, which were utilized in a single-input single-
output 3D printer for multi-material FDM printing. This
approach successfully increased the interlayer bonding
strength of printed parts without compromising their
yield strength.65 Using dual-material composite filaments
for multi-material AM gets rid of manual filament switch-
ing operations, which saves time greatly. However, it
restricts the freedom of independently controlling the con-
stituent materials allocation for each layer, as it must
follow the predetermined material distribution inherently
set during the composite filament preparation. This limita-
tion represents the primary drawback of the approach. In
contrast, A multi-feed single-nozzle achieves multi-
material AM by using multiple extruders to control the
feeding of feedstock filaments independently, and the
molten materials are then extruded through a single
nozzle sequentially. This technology enables the fabrica-
tion of functional gradient materials or mixed-color
objects. In addition, the method avoids the need for
manual filament switching, resulting in improved manu-
facturing efficiency and positioning errors that may arise
from on-site filament alternations. Moreover, temperature
Figure 9. (a) Front view of the dual-extruder printhead, (b) assembly of the dual extruder, and (c) image showing the dimensions of
the mixer and the insertion of dual-extruder channels into the mixer.91
Figure 10. Mixed heater in the FDM extruder heating chamber.70
gradients of deposited beads surfaces change rapidly if an
open-ended 3D printer was applied. In such cases, an effi-
cient material alternation process is crucial, since other-
wise the interlayer adhesions between two materials can
be even worse due to the huge temperature gradients.90
Additionally, traditional multi-feed single-nozzle FDM
printers may result in less distinctive material board in
the two-material printed parts, as the residual melt of
the previous material within the nozzle mixes with the
newly melted material during the material alteration.
Nevertheless, it somewhat promotes effective interlayer
bonding between the two constituent materials.
Khondoker et al. proposed the concept of “mechanical
interlocking” and designed a hybrid extrusion head for
enhancing the interface strength between the two materi-
als during printing, as shown in Figure 9. This approach
enables the extrusion of two immiscible materials, effect-
ively addressing the interface strength issue of multi-
material AM.91 Zhang et al.70 successfully printed func-
tional gradient composites based on PCL by utilizing a
two-in/one-out mixing nozzle depicted in Figure 10,
where the material ratio was controlled by the extruder.
Also, clearer material stratification can be obtained by
employing a purge tower during printing, as mentioned
by Song et al. However, the additional time required for
this step may lead to the interface bonding issues.55
Wang et al.
Recently, a new single-nozzle/dual-extruder 3D printer
for fused deposition molding has enabled more sensitive
material changes,92 as shown in Figure 11. This printer
achieves a clear material stratification even with
in-plane material alternation. It is important to note that
such success can only be accomplished with a limited
range of materials, such as PLA with different colors.
Additionally, the unique structure of the melt chamber
inside the nozzle may cause a certain amount of stress
during material alternation.
Multi-nozzle/multi-feed system
Another approach to multi-material FDM manufacturing
involves multiple extruders and multiple nozzles
working in synergy, which can be regarded as a series
of interconnected conventional FDM 3D printers (note,
only one nozzle-extruder unit is active at any given time
while the others are put on hold, during the manufacturing
process). Taking the commonly used dual-nozzle FDM
3D printer as an example, we see that it consists of two
extruders and two heated nozzles. Each pair of an extruder
and a nozzle is responsible for feeding and depositing one
type of feedstock material (e.g. FUNMAT PRO 410,
Figure 11. Tiertime Cetus2 3D printer: single-nozzle/multi-
feed.92
Figure 12. The extruder head module of FUNMAT PRO 410.
9
INTAMSYS Technology Co. Ltd, Shanghai, China, as
appearing in Figure 12, is an example of such 3D
printer). This approach enables the manufactured parts
to have distinct material layers, as the molten materials
from the two nozzles do not come into contact before
deposition. Simultaneously, during the process of material
alternation, the nozzle containing the upcoming material
is automatically preheated in preparation for printing.
This efficient material switching method reduces the
impact of temperature on interfacial bonding, e.g. Wang
et al.54 successfully prepared sandwich samples of
PEEK/PEI, which are two high-temperature resistant
polymeric materials, using a dual-nozzle 3D printer,
which relatively good interlayer finishing among PEEK
and PEI deposited beads (cf. Figure 13). Furthermore,
this approach can also be utilized to improve the structural
strength of a part by combining nozzles with different dia-
meters to print varying layer thicknesses at different loca-
tions of the same component (e.g. Baca and Ahmad67).
Despite the advantages expressed above, the multi-
nozzle/multi-feed 3D printer still exhibit critical issues.
It should be noted that the on-hold nozzle of the dual-
nozzle printer is preheated to a temperature slightly
below the melting temperature of the feedstock material,
and thus the altered material can be quickly feed during
the material alternation (i.e. shorter time needed to heat
up the nozzle). This is an ideal strategy, except that, unfor-
tunately, thermoplastic polymers are tend to leak out of
the nozzle owing the gravity at a temperature approaching
their melting temperature. This ultimately affects the
surface quality of the deposited beads. If a temperature
far below melting point was applied, the material alterna-
tion time would be extended (e.g. more time is required to
heat up the on-hold nozzle), and ultimately the thermal
gradients and resulting thermal stress among the inter-
layers of alternation becomes a notable issue. Due to its
dual-nozzle structure, when changing materials, both the
nozzle-extruder and their positions need to be switched.
This introduces a secondary calibration of the printing
position (as shown in Figure 14a). Then, unavoidable pos-
itional errors occur as the motion screws and stepper
motors of the printer cannot be perfectly accurate,
10
thereby affecting the quality and performance of the parts.
Baca et al. compared two printing methods, namely, multi-
material single-mixing nozzle and multi-material multi-
nozzle printing, and conducted mechanical performance
tests on the fabricated samples. They found that there
was little difference in the mechanical performance
between the two printing methods. The multi-nozzle print-
ing method could provide better performance for the parts
but introduced errors in secondary calibrations. The single-
nozzle printing method could generate higher quality
samples. They also summarized the characteristics, per-
formance, and drawbacks of both printing methods.67
There are attempts made to reduce this error, such that
the dual-nozzle/dual-extruder structure is integrated into a
single module fixed on the CNC gantry for synchronized
movement (as shown in Figure 14b). However, this solu-
tion is not without its limitations, i.e. rapidly moving
module with higher mass results in additional difficulty
in accurate positioning owing to the increased inertia
effects. Currently, this issue remains a dilemma. There
Figure 13. Meso-structural formations of the PEEK/PEI sand-
wich samples (light color refers to the PEEK).54
Figure 14. Multi-nozzle combination modes: (a) independent: two or more print heads move independently along the same x-axis;
(b) centralized: two or more print heads are concentrated within the same structure.58
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
are studies correlating the stability and processability of
the FDM melt flow with the rheology nature of the feedstock
materials (e.g. Baca and Ahmad,67 Osswald et al.,93 Phan
et al.,94 Chen and Smith95). Accordingly, we consider a pos-
sibly feasible solution finding the suitable multi-material
AM system may be settled by correlating the material prop-
erties (such as heat capacity, material shear viscosity, etc.) of
the polymer feedstock materials with the processing condi-
tions (e.g. extrusion temperature, nozzle moving speed,
and/or times of material alternations). For instance, if
on-hold feedstock material has relatively low heat capacity
and high-temperature-sensitive shear viscosity, we are able
to set the on-hold temperature of the to-be-altered nozzle
in relatively low temperature from the material’s melting
point, as the heating process requires less time (due to low
heat capacity) and the material would not leak as viscosity
is still high (due to low on-hold temperature).
Material alternation
Interlayer alternation along building direction
In the process of multi-material 3D printing, layer-by-
layer material alternation along the direction of material
deposition is a most common case, while the effectiveness
of material alternation varies among different extrusion
methods. Depending on the requirements of the compo-
nent being built, material alternations may occur
between different layers or within the same layer. When
material alternation occurs between layers, the printing
of one material is first completed, and then the material
is changed before starting the printing of the next layer.
For 3D printers with multiple feed single nozzles, the
extruder for the first material is controlled to stop extru-
sion, followed by controlling the extruder for the second
material to start extruding the second material, and
finally, the printing of the next material layer begins. It
should be noted that the implementation of material alter-
nation in multi-material AM differs depending on the
extrusion method used and is also influenced by the
requirements of the component being built. To this end,
Wang et al.
we suggest that it is essential to consider
the aforementioned factors thoroughly to ensure printing
quality and efficiency when designing and optimizing a
multi-material printing system.
In a multi-material system with single-nozzle, the
extrusion of subsequent materials during the material
change process may contain residues of the previous
material, resulting in the presence of the previous material
in the transition layer. Although this phenomenon may
enhance the bonding strength between the two materials,
the multi-feed single-nozzle printing technology allows
for the printing of functional gradient materials69 or
parts with mixed colors55 by adjusting the proportions
of each material, as shown in Figure 15. Alternatively,
in multi-nozzle/multi-feed printers, material alternations
are achieved through the coordinated cooperation between
the nozzle and the extruder during material alternation.
Each nozzle module is responsible for a constituent
material, enabling this printing method to extrude mate-
rials with different melting temperatures at varying tem-
peratures. During the printing process, the upper heating
module of the nozzle associated with the material to be
printed is preheated in advance. After the printing of
one material is completed, the nozzle associated with
the material to be printed moves to the printing position
and begins the printing of the second material.
Consequently, the products of multi-nozzle/multi-feed
systems are benefited to have distinctive interlayer
board between the material alternations.
In-plane alternation
In multi-material AM, an additional material alteration
involves switching the filament feedstock within the
same material loading plane. This significantly increases
the complexity of the printed parts, as the constituent
materials can theoretically be placed anywhere within
the manufactured domain (see Figure 16).96 However,
in-plane material alternation presents more challenges
compared to layer-by-layer 3D printing. Firstly, in the
case of single-nozzle multi-material 3D printing pro-
cesses, two materials are sequentially extruded through
Figure 15. Multi-color product prepared via a single-nozzle/
multi-feed system.55
11
the same nozzle, resulting in inaccuracies due to the
altered material being placed in the target position at a
later stage. On the other hand, a multi-nozzle/multi-feed
system can activate a second material as requested.
Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, re-positioning errors
accumulate as in-plane material alternations occur more
frequently. Additionally, the accumulation of thermal
residual stress becomes a critical issue when in-plane
alternations are performed multiple times. Unevenly dis-
tributed thermal gradients further exacerbate material
bonding problems, increasing the probability of prema-
ture failures. It is important to note that, to date,
in-plane material alternation remains challenging, particu-
larly when mechanical performance is a primary consider-
ation for multi-material products (such as functional
gradient parts and/or tooling).
Nevertheless, we note that there have been significant
breakthroughs in extrusion-based 3D printing that enable
the fabrication of multi-material structures with an
extremely high degree of freedom. For example, Skylar
et al.97 utilized a complex mold with multiple nozzles
for multi-material AM, resulting in voxelated print-outs
where different colors of feedstock materials can be
placed anywhere within the domain. This breakthrough
was achieved by using a low-viscosity hydrogel as the
material feedstock instead of the traditional high-
viscoelastic thermoplastic-based input. The flow proper-
ties of the hydrogel are much easier to manipulate
through a nozzle-extruder feeding system, as shown in
Figure 17a. In another study, Zeng et al.98 employed
aerosol-based feedstock materials to create functional
graded materials. Figure 17b illustrates a material alterna-
tion board with fine gradients, indicating promising func-
tional transitions.99 This approach is feasible due to the
ease of manipulating aerosols at relatively low tempera-
tures, as compared to conventional FDM processes. It is
Figure 16. An example of material alternation operated in the
same plane during multi-mater process.96
12
Figure 17. In-plane material alternations in multi-material extrusion-based 3D printing with feedstock material beyond thermo-
plastics. (a) Skylar-Scott et al.97 and (b) Skylar-Scott et al. Zeng et al.98
important to note that although these examples primarily
involve direct ink writing (DIW) rather than FDM, the
insights gained from these similar manufacturing
schemes are still applicable. These cases highlight the sig-
nificant impact that breakthroughs in material rheology
and thermal properties can have on advancing the
results of FDM-based multi-material AM. For instance,
nano-modified thermoplastic composites offer a potential
solution to revolutionize multi-material FDM, as the add-
ition of advanced nanofillers like CNT or graphene can
drastically alter properties such as shear viscosity and
thermal conductivity (e.g. Lebedev et al.,99 Steinmann
et al.,100 Gnanasekaran et al.,101 Guo et al.,102).
Conclusion
In general, FDM-type multi-material 3D printers can be
divided into two categories: single-nozzle/multi-feed
systems and multi-nozzle/multi-feed systems. Compared
to multi-nozzle systems, single-nozzle systems have
shorter material change times, but the boundaries
between different materials are often blurred due to the
residual old material in the chamber when using new
materials. Multi-nozzles can move freely in three-
dimensional space, which gives multi-nozzle systems
greater freedom in terms of where material alternation
occurs. At the same time, multi-nozzle systems can
form clear boundaries at material alternation locations
because different materials do not touch each other
before extrusion. Multi-nozzle systems face challenges
such as accumulating re-positioning errors and experien-
cing thermal residual stress.
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
Material alternation in multi-material 3D printing can
occur between different layers or within the same layer.
In-plane material alternation within the same material
loading plane adds complexity to the printed parts and
presents challenges in achieving accurate placement and
maintaining material bonding.
There are applications of multi-material AM achieved
through the DIW method, which is also an extrusion-
based 3D printing technique. Inspired by the success of
these applications, we recognize the importance of con-
sidering the material rheology and thermal properties of
the constituent materials when selecting a suitable
FDM-type multi-material feeding system. This can revo-
lutionize the configuration of thermoplastic-based prints
in the context of FDM-based multi-material AM.
Multi-material FDM technology has irreplaceable
advantages in creating complex structures, color gradi-
ents, and optimized material distribution to meet specific
load-bearing requirements. By overcoming the limitations
of single-material mechanical performance and utilizing
the advantages of multiple materials, multi-material
FDM expands the possibilities for innovation and opti-
mization in AM. Once its own limitations are overcome,
manufacturing possibilities will be enhanced.
Acknowledgements
The author appreciates the financial supports from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (52101381,
52175043), Department of Education of Liaoning Province
(LJKMZ20220366), and Dalian Human Resources and Social
Security Bureau (Dalian City innovation and entrepreneurship
support program for returned overseas students).
Wang et al.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China, Dalian Human Resources and Social Security Bureau,
Department of Education of Liaoning Province, (grant number
52101381, 52175043, LJKMZ20220366).
ORCID iD
Zhaogui Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-0401
References
1. Petersen EE and Pearce J. Emergence of home manufactur-
ing in the developed world: return on investment for open-
source 3-D printers. Technologies 2017; 5: 7.
2. Chen TT and Lin Y. A three-dimensional-printing-based
Agile and ubiquitous additive manufacturing system.
Robot Cim Int Manuf 2019; 55: 88–95.
3. Lazar PJL, Subramanian J, Natarajan E, et al. Anisotropic
structure-property relations of FDM printed short glass
fiber reinforced polyamide TPMS structures under
quasi-static compression. J Mater Res Technol 2023; 24:
9562–9579.
4. Markandan K and Lai CQ. Enhanced mechanical proper-
ties of 3D printed graphene-polymer composite lattices
at very low graphene concentrations. Composites Part A:
Appl Sci Manufacturing 2020; 129: 105726.
5. Kumar A, et al. Design and additive manufacturing of
closed cells from supportless lattice structure. Addit
Manuf 2020; 33: 101168.
6. Zhang J, Wang J, Dong S, et al. A review of the current
progress and application of 3D printed concrete.
Composites Part A: Appl Sci Manufacturing 2019; 125:
105533.
7. Nachal N, Moses JA, Karthik P, et al. Applications of
3D printing in food processing. Food Eng Rev 2019; 11:
123–141.
8. Dodziuk H. Applications of 3D printing in healthcare.
Pol J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 3: 283–293.
9. Wang Y, Chen T and Yeh Y. Advanced 3D printing tech-
nologies for the aircraft industry: a Fuzzy systematic
approach for assessing the critical factors. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2019; 105: 4059–4069.
10. Mohanavel V, Ashraff Ali KS, Ranganathan K, et al. The
roles and applications of additive manufacturing in the
aerospace and automobile sector. Mater Today Proc
2021; 47: 405–409.
11. Cano-Vicent A, Tambuwala MM, Hassan SS, et al. Fused
deposition modelling: current Status, methodology, appli-
cations and future prospects. Addit Manuf 2021; 47:
102378.
12. Hiemenz J. Additive manufacturing trends in aerospace.
White Paper, Stratasys, USA (2014): 1–11. https://purple
platypus.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/White-Paper-
Additive-Manufacturing-Trends-in-Aerospace-Leading-
the-Way-EN.pdf
13
13. Mohamed OA, Masood SH and Bhowmik JL.
Optimisation of dynamic mechanical thermal properties
of PC–ABS parts manufactured by FDM process using
IV optimal design. In: Reference Module in Materials
Science and Materials Engineering, Amsterdam/
Netherlands: Elsevier, 2015.
14. Romero PE. Manufacture of polyurethane foam parts for
automotive industry using FDM 3D printed molds. CIRP
J Manuf Sci Technol 2021; 32: 396–404.
15. Smith S, et al. Recent development in the additive manufac-
turing of polymer-based composites for automotive
structures—A review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2022;
119: 6877–6891.
16. Sargini MIM, Masood SH, Palanisamy S, et al. Additive
manufacturing of an automotive brake pedal by metal
fused deposition modelling. Mater Today Proc 2021; 45:
4601–4605.
17. Gao X, Yu N and Li J. Influence of printing parameters and
filament quality on structure and properties of polymer com-
posite components used in the fields of automotive. In:
Structure and properties of additive manufactured polymer
components. Duxford: Woodhead Publishing, 2020, 303–330.
18. El-Katatny I, Masood SH and Morsi YS. Error analysis of
FDM fabricated medical replicas. Rapid Prototyp J 2010;
16(1): 36–43.
19. Cheng CY, Xie H, Xu Z, et al. 4D Printing of shape
memory aliphatic copolyester via UV-assisted FDM strat-
egy for medical protective devices. Chem Eng J 2020; 396:
125242.
20. Cailleaux S, Sanchez-Ballester NM, Gueche YA, et al. Fused
Deposition Modeling (FDM), the new asset for the production
of tailored medicines. J Controlled Release 2021; 330:
821–841.
21. Mohamed OA, Masood SH and Bhowmik JL. Modeling,
analysis, and optimization of dimensional accuracy of
FDM-fabricated parts using definitive screening design
and deep learning feedforward artificial neural network.
Adv Manuf 2021; 9: 115–129.
22. Stratasys, 3D printing a space vehicle—NASA’s human
supporting rover has FDM parts, 2015, https://www.
stratasys.com/contentassets/9c06f1c3502b4c628ed45ae04
2a0b8cd/cs_fdm_ae_nasa_a4_0718a.pdf?v=48f912 (accessed
20 May 2023).
23. GE Global Research, 3D printing new parts for aircraft
engines, 2017, https://www.ge.com/additive/additive-
manufacturing/industries/aviation-aerospace. accessed 11
February 2018.
24. Quodbach J, Bogdahn M, Breitkreutz J, et al. Quality of
FDM 3D printed medicines for pediatrics: considerations
for formulation development, filament extrusion, printing
process and printer design. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2021;
56: 1–19.
25. Ansari AA and Kamil M. Effect of print speed and extru-
sion temperature on properties of 3D printed Pla using
fused deposition modeling process. Mater Today Proc
2021; 45: 5462–5468.
26. Wu W, Geng P, Li G, et al. 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 (Basel) 2015; 8: 5834–5846.
27. Sood AK, Ohdar RK and Mahapatra SS. Parametric
appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition mod-
elling processed parts. Mater Des 2010; 31: 287–295.
14
28. Dey A and Yodo N. A systematic survey of FDM process
parameter optimization and their influence on part charac-
teristics. J Manuf Mater Process 2019; 3: 64.
29. Deswal S, Narang R and Chhabra D. Modeling and para-
metric optimization of FDM 3D printing process using
hybrid techniques for enhancing dimensional preciseness.
Int J Interact Des Manuf 2019; 13: 1197–1214.
30. Ferretti P, Leon-Cardenas C, Santi GM, et al. Relationship
between FDM 3D printing parameters study: parameter
optimization for lower defects. Polymers (Basel) 2021;
13: 2190.
31. Zhang JW and Peng AH. Process-parameter optimization
for fused deposition modeling based on Taguchi method.
Adv Mater Res 2012; 538-541: 444–447.
32. Jackson B, Fouladi K and Eslami B. Multi-Parameter opti-
mization of 3D printing condition for enhanced quality and
strength. Polymers (Basel) 2022; 14: 1586.
33. Mohamed OA, Masood SH and Bhowmik JL.
Mathematical modeling and fdm process parameters opti-
mization using response surface methodology based on
Q-optimal design. Appl Math Model 2016; 40: 10052–10073.
34. Chacón JM, Caminero MA, García-Plaza E, et al. Additive
manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition
modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical
properties and their optimal selection. Mater Des 2017;
124: 143–157.
35. Baechle-Clayton M, Loos E, Taheri M, et al. Failures and
flaws in fused deposition modeling (FDM) additively
manufactured polymers and composites. J Compos Sci
2022; 6: 202.
36. Rajan K, Samykano M, Kadirgama K, et al. Fused depos-
ition modeling: process, materials, parameters, properties,
and applications. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2022; 120:
1531–1570.
37. Gao G, Xu F, Xu J, et al. A survey of the influence of
process parameters on mechanical properties of fused
deposition modeling parts. Micromachines (Basel) 2022;
13: 553.
38. Zharylkassyn B, Perveen A and Talamona D. Effect of
process parameters and materials on the dimensional
accuracy of FDM parts. Mater Today Proc 2021; 44:
1307–1311.
39. Castillo M, Monroy R and Ahmad R. Scientometric ana-
lysis and systematic review of smart manufacturing tech-
nologies applied to the 3D printing polymer material
extrusion system. J Intell Manuf 2022: 1–31. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10845-022-02049-1
40. Khan S, Joshi K and Deshmukh S. A comprehensive review
on effect of printing parameters on mechanical properties
of FDM printed parts. Mater Today Proc 2022; 50:
2119–2127.
41. Tümer EH and Erbil HY. Extrusion-based 3D printing
applications of Pla composites: a review. Coatings
(Basel) 2021; 11: 390.
42. Przekop RE, Kujawa M, Pawlak W, et al. Graphite modi-
fied polylactide (Pla) for 3D printed (FDM/FFF) sliding
elements. Polymers (Basel) 2020; 12: 1250.
43. Murphy CA and Collins MN. Microcrystalline cellulose
reinforced polylactic acid biocomposite filaments for 3D
printing. Polym Compos 2018; 39: 1311–1320.
44. Liu G, He Y, Zeng J, et al. In situ formed crosslinked
polyurethane toughened polylactide. Polym Chem 2014; 5:
253–2539.
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
45. Dai JX, Yang Q and Liu BJ. Crystallization behavior of
Pla/Peg/nucleating agent blends. Adv Mat Res 2013;
807–809: 578–581.
46. Liang L, Huang T, Yu S, et al. Study on 3D printed gra-
phene/carbon fiber multi-scale reinforced Pla composites.
Mater Lett 2021; 300: 130173.
47. Bandyopadhyay A and Heer B. Additive manufacturing of
multi-material structures. Mater Sci Eng: R 2018; 129:
1–16.
48. Bonatti C and Mohr D. Mechanical performance of
additively-manufactured anisotropic and isotropic smooth
shell-lattice materials: simulations & experiments. J Mech
Phys Solids 2019; 122: 1–26.
49. Roger F and Krawczak P. 3D-printing of thermoplastic
structures by FDM using heterogeneous infill and multi-
materials: An integrated design-advanced manufacturing
approach for factories of the future. CFM 2015 - 22ème
Congrès Français de Mécanique, Aug 2015, Lyon, France.
⟨hal-03444817⟩.
50. Huang SH, Liu P, Mokasdar A, et al. Additive manufactur-
ing and its societal impact: a literature review. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2013; 67: 1191–1203.
51. Hajare DM and Gajbhiye TS. Additive manufacturing (3D
printing): recent progress on advancement of materials and
challenges. Mater Today Proc 2022; 58: 736–743.
52. Rafiee M, Farahani R D and Therriault D. Multi©\material
3D and 4D printing: a survey. Adv Sci 2020; 7: 1902307.
53. Kumar S, Singh R, Singh TP, et al. 3D printed tensile and
flexural prototypes of thermoplastic matrix reinforced with
multi-materials: a statistical analysis. Mater Today Proc
2021; 44: 79–85.
54. Wang Z, Yin X and Wang L. An experimental investiga-
tion on the tensile properties of PEEK-PEI sandwich struc-
tures prepared via fused filament fabrication. High Perform
Polym 2023; 35(3): 276–294.
55. Song H, Martínez J, Bedell P, et al. Colored fused filament
fabrication. ACM T. Graphic 2019; 38: 1–11.
56. All3DP. Best 3D Printer Filament: The Main Types
in 2023. 2022/12/26. https://all3dp.com/1/3d-printer-
filament-types-3d-printing-3d-filament/ accessed 11 June
2023
57. Tran P and Peng C. Triply periodic minimal surfaces sand-
wich structures subjected to shock impact. J. Sandw Struct
Mater 2021; 23(6): 2146–2175.
58. Boulaala M, Elmessaoudi D, Buj-Corral I, et al. Towards
design of mechanical part and electronic control of multi-
material/multicolor fused deposition modeling 3D print-
ing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2020; 110: 45–55.
59. Prajapati MJ, Kumar A, Lin SC, et al. Multi-material addi-
tive manufacturing with lightweight closed-cell foam-filled
lattice structures for enhanced mechanical and functional
properties. Addit Manuf 2022; 54: 102766. doi:10.1016/j.
addma.2022.102766.
60. Ribeiro M, Sousa Carneiro O and Ferreira da Silva A.
Interface geometries in 3D multi-material prints by fused
filament fabrication. Rapid Prototyp J 2019; 25: 38–46.
61. Wang F, Ji Y, Chen C, et al. Tensile properties of 3D
printed structures of polylactide with thermoplastic polyur-
ethane. J Polym Res 2022; 29: 320.
62. Brancewicz-Steinmetz E, Sawicki J and Byczkowska P.
The influence of 3D printing parameters on adhesion
between polylactic acid (PLA) and thermoplastic polyur-
ethane (TPU). Materials (Basel) 2021; 14: 6464.
Wang et al.
63. Dong K, Panahi-Sarmad M, Cui Z, et al. Electro-Induced
shape memory effect of 4D printed auxetic composite
using PLA/TPU/CNT filament embedded synergistically
with continuous carbon fiber: a theoretical & experimental
analysis. Composites Part B: Eng 2021; 220: 108994.
64. Huang X, Panahi-Sarmad M, Dong K, et al. 4D Printed
TPU/PLA/CNT wave structural composite with intelligent
thermal-induced shape memory effect and synergistically
enhanced mechanical properties. Composites Part A:
Appl Sci Manufacturing 2022; 158: 106946.
65. De León AS, Domínguez-Calvo A and Molina SI. Materials
with enhanced adhesive properties based on acrylonitrile-
butadiene-styrene (Abs)/thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
blends for fused filament fabrication (FFF). Mater Des 2019;
182: 108044.
66. Lopes LR, Silva AF and Carneiro OS. Multi-material 3D
printing: the relevance of materials affinity on the bound-
ary interface performance. Addit Manuf 2018; 23: 45–52.
67. Baca D and Ahmad R. The impact on the mechanical prop-
erties of multi-material polymers fabricated with a single
mixing nozzle and multi-nozzle systems via fused depos-
ition modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2020; 106:
4509–4520.
68. Yap PV, Chan MY and Koay SC. Preliminary study on
mechanical properties of 3D printed multi-materials
ABS/PC parts: effect of printing parameters. J Phys Sci
2021; 32: 87–104.
69. Ahmed SW, Hussain G, Al-Ghamdi KA, et al.
Mechanical properties of an additive manufactured
CF-PLA/ABS hybrid composite sheet. J Thermoplast
Compos 2021; 34: 1577–1596.
70. Zhang X, Wang J and Liu T. 3D Printing of
polycaprolactone-based composites with diversely tunable
mechanical gradients via multi-material fused deposition
modeling. Compos Commun 2021; 23: 100600.
71. Singh R, Kumar R, Farina I, et al. Multi-material additive
manufacturing of sustainable innovative materials and
structures. Polymers (Basel) 2019; 11: 62.
72. Mirzaali MJ, De La Nava AH, Gunashekar D, et al.
Mechanics of bioinspired functionally graded soft-hard
composites made by multi-material 3D printing. Compos
Struct 2020; 237: 111867.
73. Tambrallimath V, Keshavamurthy R, Saravanabavan D,
et al. Thermal behavior of Pc-Abs based graphene filled
polymer nanocomposite synthesized by FDM process.
Compos Commun 2019; 15: 129–134.
74. Baca Lopez DM and Ahmad R. Tensile mechanical behav-
iour of multi-polymer sandwich structures via fused depos-
ition modelling. Polymers (Basel) 2020; 12: 51.
75. Kumar S, Singh R, Singh TP, et al. Flexural, pull-out, and
fractured surface characterization for multi-material 3D
printed functionally graded prototype. J Compos Mater
2020; 54: 2087–2099.
76. Kumar S, Singh R and Singh TP. Multimaterial printing
and characterization for mechanical and surface properties
of functionally graded prototype. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part
C: J Mech Eng Sci 2019; 233: 6741–6753.
77. Han D and Lee H. Recent advances in multi-material addi-
tive manufacturing: methods and applications. Curr Opin
Chem Eng 2020; 28: 158–166.
78. Wei C and Li L. Recent progress and scientific challenges in
multi-material additive manufacturing via laser-based powder
bed fusion. Virtual Phys Prototyp 2021; 16: 347–371.
15
79. García-Collado A, Blanco JM, Gupta MK, et al. Advances
in polymers based multi-material additive-manufacturing
techniques: state-of-art review on properties and applica-
tions. Addit Manuf 2022; 50: 102577.
80. Lin W, Shen H, Xu G, et al. Single-layer temperature-
adjusting transition method to improve the bond strength
of 3D-printed PCL/PLA parts. Composites, Part A: Appl
Sci Manufacturing 2018; 115: 22–30.
81. Yin J, Lu C, Fu J, et al. Interfacial bonding during multi-
material fused deposition modeling (FDM) Process due to
inter-molecular diffusion. Mater Des 2018; 150: 104–112.
82. Bhandari S, Lopez-Anido RA and Gardner DJ. Enhancing
the interlayer tensile strength of 3D printed short carbon
fiber reinforced PETG and PLA composites via annealing.
Addit Manuf 2019; 30: 100922.
83. Ravi AK, Deshpande A and Hsu KH. An in-process laser
localized pre-deposition heating approach to inter-layer
bond strengthening in extrusion based polymer additive
manufacturing. J Manuf Process 2016; 24: 179–185.
84. Andreu A, Kim S, Dittus J, et al. Hybrid material extrusion
3D printing to strengthen interlayer adhesion through hot
rolling. Addit Manuf 2022; 55: 102773.
85. Kishore V, Ajinjeru C, Nycz A, et al. Infrared preheating
to improve interlayer strength of big area additive manu-
facturing (Baam) components. Addit Manuf 2017; 14:
7–12.
86. Sweeney CB, Lackey BA, Pospisil MJ, et al. Welding of
3D-printed carbon nanotube-polymer composites by
locally induced microwave heating. Sci Adv 2017; 3:
e1700262.
87. Sabyrov N, Abilgaziyev A and Ali MH. Enhancing inter-
layer bonding strength of Fdm 3D printing technology
by diode Laser-assisted system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2020; 108: 603–611.
88. Ahmed SW, Hussain G and Altaf K. On the effects of
process parameters and optimization of interlaminate
bond strength in 3D printed ABS/CF-PLA composite.
Polymers (Basel) 2020; 12: 2155.
89. Tamburrino F, Graziosi S and Bordegoni M. The influence
of slicing parameters on the multi-material adhesion
mechanisms of FDM printed parts: an exploratory study.
Virtual Phys Prototyp 2019; 14: 316–332.
90. Samy AA, Golbang A, Harkin-Jones E, et al. Finite
element analysis of residual stress and warpage in a 3D
printed semi-crystalline polymer: effect of ambient tem-
perature and nozzle speed. J Manuf Process 2021; 70:
389–399.
91. Khondoker MAH, Asad A and Sameoto D. Printing with
mechanically interlocked extrudates using a custom
bi-extruder for fused deposition modelling. Rapid Prototyp
J 2018; 24: 921–934.
92. TierTime. Cetus2 3D Printer Deluxe Version. 2023/4/17.
https://www.cetus3d.com/product/cetus2-3d-printer/, accessed
in 10 June 2023.
93. Osswald TA, Puentes J and Kattinger J. Fused filament
fabrication melting model. Addit Manuf 2018; 22: 51–59.
94. Phan DD, Horner JS, Swain ZR, et al. Computational fluid
dynamics simulation of the melting process in the fused
filament fabrication additive manufacturing technique.
Addit Manuf 2020; 33: 101161.
95. Chen J and Smith DE. Filament rheological characteriza-
tion for fused filament fabrication additive manufacturing:
a low-cost approach. Addit Manuf 2021; 47: 102208.
16
96. Hasanov S, Alkunte S, Rajeshirke M, et al. Review on
additive manufacturing of multi-material parts: progress
and challenges. J Manuf Mater Process 2021; 6: 4.
97. Skylar-Scott MA, Mueller J, Visser CW, et al. Voxelated
soft matter via multimaterial multinozzle 3D printing.
Nature 2019; 575: 330–335.
98. Zeng M, Du Y, Jiang Q, et al. High-throughput printing
of combinatorial materials from aerosols. Nature 2023;
617: 292–298.
99. Lebedev SM, Gefle OS, Amitov ET, et al. Poly (lactic
acid)-based polymer composites with high electric and
thermal conductivity and their characterization. Polym
Test 2017; 58: 241–248.
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
100. Steinmann W, Vad T, Weise B, et al. Extrusion
of CNT-modified polymers with low viscosity-
influence of crystallization and CNT orientation on the
electrical properties. Polym Polym Compos 2013; 21:
473–482.
101. Gnanasekaran K, Heijmans T, Van Bennekom S, et al. 3D
Printing of CNT-and graphene-based conductive polymer
nanocomposites by fused deposition modeling. Appl
Mater Today 2017; 9: 21–28.
102. Guo H, Zhao H, Niu H, et al. Highly thermally conductive
3D printed graphene filled polymer composites for scalable
thermal management applications. ACS Nano 2021; 15:
6917–6928.