Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 103–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Full Length Article

The impact of print orientation and raster pattern on fracture

toughness in additively manufactured ABS
Tait D. McLouth ∗ , Joseph V. Severino, Paul M. Adams, Dhruv N. Patel, Rafael J. Zaldivar
The Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 92957, M2/242, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fused deposition modeling (FDM) has been gaining industrial interest due to its potential to simplify
Received 25 April 2017 and lower the cost of complex manufacturing. To better understand the mechanical response of these
Received in revised form 6 September 2017 materials—due to potential integration of FDM parts into structural components—compact tension sam-
Accepted 8 September 2017
ples of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) were printed in three orthogonal orientations to analyze
Available online 21 September 2017
how the fracture toughness varied with mesostructure. Furthermore, in each of these orientations the
raster pattern was either an alternating +45/−45◦ or a 0/90◦ pattern. When the alignment of extruded
Keywords:
filament layers changed from parallel to perpendicular with respect to the crack plane, a 54% increase in
Additive manufacturing
Fracture toughness
fracture toughness was observed. However, the raster pattern only had a significant effect in one of the
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene print orientations; the fracture toughness decreased by 11% when a 0/90◦ pattern was used in place of
Print orientation a +45/−45◦ pattern in layers oriented perpendicularly to the crack plane. The orientation of individual
Raster pattern tracks of deposited material with respect to the crack tip appeared to have the most pronounced role
in altering the fracture toughness of FDM ABS. This research provides useful information and insight to
future designers determining how processing affects the crack stability of these new materials used for
space hardware
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction terns that define the geometry of a single cross-sectional slice of

Polymer based additive manufacturing has been increasingly
utilized in a wide range of fields for the last several decades. The
ability to quickly design, alter, and print complex geometries pro-
duces a cost-effective manufacturing process to reduce the overall
number of parts used in space hardware [1–3]. Past applications
using this technology have focused mostly on prototype utiliza-
tion; however, advances in materials and processing are bringing
this adaptable technique to a more mature stage of production.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
United Launch Alliance (ULA) have both begun to incorporate 3D
printed thermoplastic parts into their space vehicles and satellites.
An example is the recent development of an antenna array for the
FormoSat-7/COSMIC-2 satellite mission which was manufactured
®
using fused deposition modeling (FDM) ULTEM 9085 [4,5].
Production of parts by FDM relies on the coordinated movement
between an extruding nozzle and a building platform, schemat-
ically shown in Fig. 1. The nozzle is responsible for heating and
extruding the thermoplastic material in predetermined raster pat-
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tait.d.mclouth@aero.org (T.D. McLouth).
a part. The nozzle traverses back and forth in the XY plane until a
single layer is complete, then the build platform moves down one
layer step in the Z direction and the process repeats until all layers
have been printed. Based upon a part’s physical orientation inside
of the printer, the cross-sectional slices that determine the layers
will be different. These variations in geometry can produce parts of
the same net shape, but with entirely different mesostructures.
Anisotropy that stems from the layered structure, raster
patterns, and print orientations has been observed to impact
mechanical properties [6–9]. Zaldivar et al. [6] quantified print
®
orientation dependent tensile properties for ULTEM 9085. They
found mechanical properties reached 85% of the ideal injection
molded ultimate tensile strength (UTS) when the gauge lengths
were aligned parallel to the build platform in the X or Y orien-
tation. Conversely, samples with a gauge length normal to the
build platform in the Z orientation only achieved 45% of the UTS.
The X and Y specimens had more extruded filaments in line with
the tensile load, where these continuous filaments can efficiently
carry and transfer load. It becomes apparent from these results
that polymeric FDM parts have anisotropic properties much like
continuous fiber composites, where inferior transverse properties
must be accommodated. Ahn et al. [7] observed differences in the
mechanical properties of FDM ABS when the raster patterns of indi-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.09.003
2214-8604/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
104 T.D. McLouth et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 103–109
Fig. 1. Schematic of the main parts in the FDM process, with dashed arrows denoting
allowed movement directions. The extruding nozzle that dispenses hot thermoplas-
tic material is limited to movement only in the XY-plane. The build platform that
parts are built on can only move up and down along the Z-axis. The part itself is
comprised of many layers of extruded thermoplastic material set in specified raster
patterns.
vidual layers were varied. They found that certain patterns can
create areas of stress concentration and change the load distribu-
tion across a sample. Fabricating parts with an optimized raster
orientation where more extruded filaments are in line with the
tensile load improved mechanical properties; samples consisting
of a [0◦ ]12 lay-up orientation exhibited a 40% increase in tensile
strength compared to those of a [+45/−45◦ ]6 pattern [7].
The thermoplastic polymer ABS is used in a variety of FDM
machines ranging from commercial to desktop devices [10,11]. As
a result of this ubiquitous application, ABS is used in this study.
The effect that these processing parameters may have on tensile
and compressive mechanical properties of FDM ABS has been well
studied, but more work in the area of fracture toughness is still
necessary [7,8]. In the present work, the physical changes to the
mesostructure that result from the print orientation and raster pat-
tern are studied for their effect on fracture toughness. To assess the
likelihood of fracture in a specific component, it is useful to know
the stress intensity factor, K, which defines the magnitude of the
stress field around the crack tip. K contains information regarding
the geometry of the crack as well as the current level of stress at
the crack tip. Upon reaching a critical value of K called the criti-
cal stress intensity factor (KC ), a material will fracture. This value
is commonly known as the fracture toughness of a material, as it
defines the resistance to fracture in the presence of a sharp crack.
To quantify the fracture toughness of a material, it is necessary
to first define the mode of loading. Mode I, or opening mode, is
encountered in most engineering applications, so it is the most
commonly used metric of fracture toughness as opposed to Mode
II, in-plane shear mode, or Mode III, tearing mode [12]. Compact
tension (CT) specimens were chosen to achieve Mode I crack open-
ing and thereby enable determination of fracture toughness. The
variation in toughness was compared with micrographs of frac-
ture surfaces to draw novel conclusions about the mechanisms that
drive fracture toughness in additively manufactured polymer com-
ponents as they relate to the raster pattern and sample orientation
within the printer.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
All 3D printed parts were manufactured on the Stratasys Fortus
250mc system using ABSplus-P430 material in conjunction with
SR-30 soluble support material. Solid files of each part were loaded
into Stratasys’s Insight software. The layer height was 0.018 cm and
contour width was 0.051 cm. Standard parameters from the soft-
ware were used for the build density, raster width, and raster delta
angle air gap.
CT samples were produced according to ASTM D5045 [13].
Their dimensions were 6.35 cm (W) × 6.10 cm (H) × 1.27 cm (T),
with a crack length of 3.18 cm. Sample orientation was described
by the orthogonal orientation notation as outlined in ISO/ASTM
52921:2013, and crack orientation was described by a two-letter
designation as outlined in ASTM E1823 [14,15]. In this notation, as
shown in Fig. 2, sample orientations are identified by a three let-
ter designation based upon a sample’s bounding box being aligned
parallel to the X, Y, and Z axes. One lists the axis parallel to the
longest overall dimension first, followed by the axis parallel to the
second longest dimension, and finally followed by the axis parallel
to the shortest dimension [14]. The crack orientation notation con-
tains two letters, the first represents the direction normal to the
crack plane and the second designates the expected direction of
crack propagation [15]. A schematic of all the samples can be seen
in Fig. 2. The XZY geometry was printed upright with layers ori-
ented parallel to the Z–X crack alignment. The XYZ geometry laid
flat against the build platform, and its layers were oriented perpen-
dicular to the Y–X crack alignment. Finally, the ZXY samples had
layers perpendicular to the X–Z crack alignment and crack plane.
Two different raster patterns were also utilized for each of these
configurations. The first consisted of alternating +45/−45◦ layers,
while the second involved alternating 0/90◦ layers with respect to
the build platform (Fig. 2).
2.2. Mechanical testing
The CT testing was performed for each of the samples with an
Instron Model 5966, a 10 kN load cell, and a crosshead displace-
ment rate of 1.27 cm/min. A clip-on gauge was used to measure the
crack opening displacement during testing and Bluehill 3, Instron’s
standard software, was used for data acquisition.
2.3. Fracture surface analysis
A JEOL JSM-6460LV was used for scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) of fracture surfaces. Samples were separated after testing to
present the entire fracture surface behind the original crack tip.
The system was operated at a low vacuum pressure of 45 Pa to
avoid charging, the accelerating voltage was 15 kV, and the working
distance was 36 mm.
2.4. Calculation of results
To determine fracture toughness, the stress intensity factor was
calculated to quantify the stress field around the crack tip [12]. In
the following equations:
PQ
KQ = 1
∗ f (x) (1)
BW 2
 
(2 + x) 0.866 + 4.64x − 13.32x2 + 14.72x3 − 5.6x4
f (x) = 3
(2)
(1 − x) 2
KQ is a conditional fracture toughness calculation, PQ is the load
corresponding to a 2.5% apparent increment of crack extension, B is
specimen thickness, W is specimen width, a is the crack length, and
x is the crack length to specimen width ratio a/W (0.2 < x < 1.0). To
validate the linear elastic plane-strain fracture toughness measure-
ment, PQ is determined by finding the intersection of the load vs.
crack opening curve and a line having a compliance 5% greater than
the initial slope of the curve. Pmax is then taken to be the maximum
 T.D. McLouth et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 103–109 105

Fig. 2. Physical orientations of samples as they are printed relative to one another with the build direction shown on the left. 0/90◦ and +45/−45◦ raster patterns are also
shown how they would appear on the build platform. Layers are sliced parallel to the surface of the build platform.

Table 1
Tabulated values for the fracture toughness values as they correspond to raster and
print orientation.

Print Orientation Raster Orientation KQ (MPa*m1/2 )

◦
XYZ +45/−45 1.62 ± 6%
0/90◦ 1.69 ± 5%
ZXY +45/−45◦ 1.97 ± 3%
0/90◦ 1.75 ± 5%
XZY +45/−45◦ 1.28 ± 2%
0/90◦ 1.39 ± 5%

load sustained by the specimen. Under the following conditions, KQ

is equivalent to KIC :
Pmax
< 1.1 (3)
PQ
 2
KQ
2.5 <B (4)
y

where  y is the yield strength of ABS, which is taken to be 19.8 MPa

based upon previous material testing [13]. If Eq. (3) is not met, KQ is
reported instead because linear-elastic plane-strain fracture tough-
ness requirements were not met. Typical values for KIC of bulk ABS
range from 1.1–4 MPa*m1/2 with variations due to compositional
differences [16,17].
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 3. Load vs crack opening curve for all six groups of samples. Each curve is a
single representative sample from its respective group.
orientations had similarly low values of fracture toughness [18].
This dissimilarity between studies may be attributed to differences
in crack propagation direction within ZXY samples, which can be
indicative of high or low fracture toughness, as discussed below.

The tabulated fracture toughness results of the three print
orientations and two raster schemes are provided in Table 1.
Additionally, representative load versus crack opening curves are
provided for each of these configurations in Fig. 3. Samples in the
XYZ and ZXY orientations did not meet the requirements for linear
elastic plane strain fracture toughness measurements, and there-
fore fracture toughness results are reported as KQ . The samples in
the XZY orientation met the requirements and therefore KQ = KIC
in Table 1. From these results the fracture toughness values fell
into three distinct groupings with the XZY samples having the low-
est fracture toughness and the ZXY +45/−45◦ samples having the
highest. Build orientation dependence of fracture toughness is a
result that is seen in other work by Patel et al. [18] in FDM ABS. In
CT samples they found that the XYZ orientation had a higher frac-
ture toughness than the XZY orientation, but that the ZXY and XZY
3.1. XYZ printer orientation
The two raster patterns, +45/−45◦ and 0/90◦ , in the XYZ ori-
entation showed similar values for KQ . However, the direction of
crack propagation was different. The crack in the 0/90◦ raster spec-
imen propagated parallel to the crack plane, while in the +45/−45◦
raster pattern it propagated 45◦ away from the crack plane, Fig. 4.
Micrographs of these fracture surfaces (Fig. 5) reflect this behavior.
The fracture surfaces are both comprised of alternating structures;
aligned filament faces that are perpendicular to the propagation
plane (dashed arrows) and continuous filaments that run paral-
lel to the plane (solid arrows). For the 0/90◦ samples, as shown
in Fig. 6a, the 90◦ filaments (dashed lines) act as strong barriers
to crack propagation; as the sample is pulled in tension these fil-
aments are loaded along their length providing reinforcement as
106 T.D. McLouth et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 103–109

Fig. 4. Figure detailing the crack propagation for the XYZ orientation containing a Y-X crack. a) The in-plane crack propagation of the 0/90◦ samples denoted by the black
arrows. b) The out-of-plane crack propagation at a 45◦ angle in the +45/−45◦ sample denoted by the black arrows.

Fig. 5. SEM image of the XYZ orientation. a) Fracture surface of the 0/90◦ sample showing a similar fracture surface as the +45/−45◦ , with the same alternating perpendicular
and parallel filaments b) Fracture surface of the +45/−45◦ sample, showing the alternating perpendicular and parallel filaments with respect to the crack propagation plane.
The crack propagation and build direction are specified.

Fig. 6. Favorable and unfavorable raster orientations demonstrated for the a) 0/90◦ and b) +45/−45◦ orientations. The direction of crack propagation is aligned parallel to
the unfavorable filament orientation in both samples.
 T.D. McLouth et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 103–109
Fig. 7. Schematic of raster orientations within individual layers for both the 0/90◦ (a) and +45/−45◦ (b) orientations for the ZXY sample to show the mesostructure ahead of
the crack front.
Fig. 8. SEM fracture surface of both raster orientations for the ZXY orientation. Dashed arrows represent filaments that must be sheared, while solid arrows indicate filaments
that undergo interfilament failure.
a monofilament of ABS. The strength in the 0◦ layer (solid lines)
relies on interfilament fusion, which is substantially weaker than
the strength along the length of a filament [6]. The SEM fracture
surfaces show signs of localized plastic deformation on the face of
the aligned filaments in the 90◦ orientation while the 0◦ filaments
are relatively smooth and featureless. This agrees with the findings
of Ziemien et al. [19] who observed crazing and localized micro-
shearing in FDM ABS after failure of high strength specimens, while
the absence of these features indicated lower strength. Because the
interfilament fusion provides less strength, the plane of crack prop-
agation should contain a maximum amount of unaligned filaments.
For the 0/90◦ samples, this plane aligned with the 0◦ raster pattern.
For samples containing +45/−45◦ rasters, the weakest plane can
either be above or below the original crack as they are symmetric.
By propagating at a 45◦ angle away from the crack plane (Fig. 6b),
it is following the path of least resistance.
3.2. ZXY print orientation
The ZXY samples showed raster dependent fracture toughness.
The +45/−45◦ samples had a fracture toughness of 1.97 MPa*m1/2
and the 0/90◦ samples had an 11% lower value of 1.75 MPa*m1/2 .
Both raster schemes had crack propagation parallel to the crack
plane; however, different structures developed ahead of the crack
tip. This can be attributed to the print orientation and raster pat-
terns. A cross sectional schematic of the ZXY samples’ structures is
shown in Fig. 7. In the 0/90◦ samples, the 90◦ layers are pulled along
their strong axis. However, the 0◦ layers depend on interfilament
107
fusion for strength. The samples printed in the ZXY orientation
studied by Patel et al. display different crack propagation behav-
ior than what is observed in the present work. Samples that have
cracks propagating perpendicularly to the crack plane, and there-
fore between layers, are shown to have a low fracture toughness
relative to other print orientations [18]. On the other hand, for prop-
agation that runs parallel to the crack plane, a much higher relative
fracture toughness is observed, as the crack must now pass through
filaments oriented in a stronger manner. This behavior, and the
corresponding KQ , are similar to both of the XYZ samples where
only half of the filaments act as strong barriers to crack propaga-
tion. In the +45/−45◦ samples, every filament ahead of the crack
tip is loaded at a 45◦ angle, thereby eliminating the interfilament
weak link. Tensile studies conducted on +45/−45◦ samples indi-
cated more strength than those that relied solely on interfilament
fusion due to the pulling and eventual shear failure of individual
filaments [19].
The 0/90◦ samples had what appears to be a brittle, planar frac-
ture surface (Fig. 8a), while the +45/−45◦ samples exhibit a fracture
surface with a more jagged saw-toothed topography (Fig. 8b). This
irregular crack surface increases the fracture toughness by dissi-
pating the fracture energy over a larger volume. A similar result
was shown by Gardan et al. [20] when an optimized print struc-
ture for CT specimens created a localized alignment of filaments
at the crack tip. This improved mesostructure encouraged modest
branching and showed improved fracture toughness, much like the
+45/−45◦ ZXY samples. This deviation to a mixed mode of failure
contributes to increased energy dissipation, and a higher fracture
108 T.D. McLouth et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 103–109
Fig. 9. Schematic of the XZY orientation with the a) 0/90◦ and b) +45/−45◦ raster pattern showing the manner in which layers are oriented with respect to the crack plane.
In both samples, the layers run parallel to the crack plane.
Fig. 10. Fracture surface of both raster orientations for the XZY orientation. Both surfaces are relatively smooth and featureless with no indications of crazing or significant
plastic deformation.
toughness. The high fracture toughness in the +45/−45◦ samples
can be attributed to a favorable combination of print orientation
and raster pattern that creates a tortuous path for crack propaga-
tion.
3.3. XZY print orientation
In the XZY print orientation each layer is parallel to the crack
plane, resulting in a structure that is solely dependent on interfil-
ament fusion to provide resistance to crack growth regardless of
raster pattern. Of the three orientations, the XZY group had the
lowest fracture toughness as would be expected. The +45/−45◦
and 0/90◦ orientations had fracture toughnesses of 1.28 and
1.39 MPa*m1/2 , respectively. Not only are these lower values than
previous samples but they are nearly the same, indicating that
raster orientation does not provide significant contribution to the
fracture toughness of the specimen in this direction. When the lay-
ers are printed in this manner a weak interfilament plane is formed
at the crack tip (Fig. 9). The fracture surfaces of the XZY samples
shown in Fig. 10 are similar in nature to those observed by Zaldivar
et al. [6] where smooth and featureless fracture surfaces indicated
a weak interface due to poor interfilament fusion.
To further detail the extreme cases, high magnification micro-
graphs of the fracture surfaces are shown in Fig. 11 for XZY
+45/−45◦ and ZXY +45/−45◦ samples. Fig. 11a shows a high degree
of localized plastic deformation on the fractured filaments, while
Fig. 11b has a characteristically brittle failure as verified by the
smooth and flat surfaces shown in the micrograph. Localized defor-
mation in the XZY +45/−45◦ sample is a result of the tensile stress
state ahead of the crack tip which leads to crazing in the filaments
[21]. Crazing near the crack tip allows for plastic deformation while
maintaining the ability to bear load [22]. This mechanism allows the
crack tip to be more effectively blunted by a region of plastic defor-
mation, the plastic zone [23]. With increasing plastic zone size, the
maximum stress that a sample can withstand without crack propa-
gation also increases. The ZXY +45/−45◦ samples undergo the most
plastic deformation since the extruded filaments are orthogonal to
the propagation direction. Filaments loaded along their axis are
capable of withstanding more plastic deformation than filaments
loaded across interfilament boundaries [6]. These factors contribute
to the large fracture toughness observed in the ZXY +45/−45◦ sam-
ples, while the lack of these features and subsequent brittle failure
help to explain the low fracture toughness in XZY samples.
4. Conclusion
Print and raster orientation in FDM CT samples were shown to
significantly impact fracture toughness. Samples printed in the ZXY
and XYZ directions contained half or more of their filaments in a
direction that was orthogonal to the crack plane, which resulted
in a significant obstacle to crack propagation and a fracture tough-
ness that reached 1.97 MPa*m1/2 for the ZXY orientation. The XZY
orientation did not have any filaments aligned orthogonally to the
crack plane. Instead, it relied upon weak interfilament bonding to
resist crack propagation, resulting in a low fracture toughness of
 T.D. McLouth et al. / Additive Manufacturing 18 (2017) 103–109 109

Fig. 11. Higher magnification SEM images showing a) The ductile fracture surface of a ZXY +45/−45◦ specimen b) The brittle fracture of a XZY +45/−45◦ specimen.

1.28 MPa*m1/2 . The raster pattern utilized had a significant impact [2] P.C. Sai, S. Yeole, Fused deposition modeling—insights, in: International
Conference on Advances in Design and Manufacturing, Bonfring, 2014, pp.
on samples when it aligned more filaments orthogonally to the
0057–0060.
crack plane, as was the case for the ZXY +45/−45◦ samples. When [3] L. Novakova-Marcincinova, J. Novak-Marcincin, Applications of rapid
filaments adjacent to the crack tip were loaded along their axis the prototyping fused deposition modeling materials, Annals of DAAAM for 2012
plastic zone was larger than when loading occurred in an interfila- & Proceedings of the 23rd International DAAAM Symposium (2012), Volume
23, No. 1, ISSN 2304–1382.
ment manner. Ultimately it is the alignment of extruded filaments [4] D. Turbiner, Phased antenna array for global navigation satellite system
in strong configurations that changes the mechanical properties; signals, U.S. Patent 20130342397 A1, Filed June 25, 2013, and Issued
the more filaments aligned orthogonally to the crack plane, the December 26, 2013.
[5] Stratasys, Stratasys 3D Printing Keeps NASA Satellite On Time and On
higher the fracture toughness. This research provides useful infor- Budget–FDM Strong Enough for Space, 2015 (Accessed April, 2017) http://
mation and insight to future designers by highlighting the effect blog.stratasys.com/2015/02/12/nasa-3d-printing-fortus/.
that filament orientation with respect to the crack front can have [6] R.J. Zaldivar, D.B. Witkin, T.D. McLouth, D.N. Patel, K.A. Schmitt, J.P. Nokes,
Influence of processing and orientation print effects on the mechanical and
on crack stability. The analysis of specific raster patterns and sample thermal behavior of 3D-printed ULTEM 9085 material, Addit. Manuf. 13
orientations provides a wide range of potential configurations for (2017) 71–80.
samples that may be relevant when considering these new mate- [7] S. Ahn, M. Montero, D. Odell, S. Roundy, P.K. Wright, Anisotropic material
properties of fused deposition modeling ABS, Rapid Prototyping 8 (4) (2002)
rials for space hardware.
248–257.
[8] M. Montero, S. Roundy, D. Odell, S. Ahn, P.K. Wright, Material Characterization
Acknowledgments of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) ABS by Designed Experiments, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, 2001.
We would like to thank The Aerospace Corporation’s Research [9] A. Bagsik, V. Schöppner, Mechanical Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling
®
Parts Manufactured with ULTEM 9085, ANTEC, Boston, 2011.
Program and Development Office for their support. We would also [10] Stratasys, ABSplus-P430 Production-Grade Thermoplastic for Design Series 3D
like to thank Dr. D. Witkin and J. Lee for the opportunity to do this Printers, 2017 (Accessed March, 2017) http://www.stratasys.com/materials/
research. fdm/absplus.
[11] Makerbot, Filament PLA and ABS, 2009 (Accessed March 2017) https://
support.makerbot.com/learn/3d-printing/filament/filament 12652.
Appendix. [12] R.W. Hertzberg, R.P. Vinci, J.L. Hertzberg, Deformation and Fracture Mechanics
of Engineering Materials, 5th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
[13] ASTM D5045-14, Standard Test Methods for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness
Term/Symbol Meaning and Strain Energy Release Rate of Plastic Materials, ASTM, International, West
Conshohocken, PA, U.S.A, 2017.
a Crack Length
[14] ISO/ASTM 52921:2013(E), Standard Terminology for Additive
ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Manufacturing—Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies, ISO/ASTM
B Specimen Thickness International, 2016.
CT Compact Tension [15] ASTM E1823 – 13, Standard Terminology Relating to Fatigue and Fracture
f(x) Function for Calculation of KQ Testing, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, U.S.A, 2017.
FDM Fused Deposition Modeling [16] Cambridge University Engineering Department, Materials Databook, 2003.
Kc Critical Stress Intensity Factor [17] M.M. Mazidi, M.K.R. Aghjeh, F. Abbasi, Evaluation of fracture toughness of ABS
KIC Linear Elastic Plane Strain Fracture Toughness polymers via the essential work of fracture (EWF) method, J. Mater. Sci. 47
KQ Conditional Fracture Toughness (2012) 6375–6386.
Pmax Maximum Sustainable Load [18] R. Patel, H.N. Shah, S.V. Kumari, Experimental investigation of fracture of ABS
Pq Load at 2.5% Crack Extension material by ASTM D-5045 for different crack length & layer of orientation
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope using FDM process, Int. J. Mech. Ind. Technol. 3 (1) (2015) 79–83.
[19] C. Ziemian, M. Sharma, S. Ziemian, Anisotropic mechanical properties of ABS
UTS Ultimate Tensile Strength
parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling, in: Dr. Murat Gokcek (Ed.),
W Specimen Width
Mechanical Engineering, InTech, 2012, ISBN 978-953-51-0505-3 (Accessed
x a/W March, 2017) http://www.intechopen.com/books/mechanical-engineering/
X-Z Crack See Fig. 2 anisotropicmechanical-properties-of-abs-parts-fabricated-by-fused-
XYZ Sample See Fig. 2 deposition-modeling.
Y-X Crack See Fig. 2 [20] J. Gardan, A. Makke, N. Recho, A method to improve the fracture toughness
XZY Sample See Fig. 2 using 3D printing by extrusion deposition, Procedia Struct. Integrity 2 (2016)
Z-X Crack See Fig. 2 144–151.
ZXY Sample See Fig. 2 [21] M.E. Launey, R.O. Ritchie, On the fracture toughness of advanced materials,
␴y Yield Strength Adv. Mater. 21 (2009) 2103–2110.
[22] M.A. Meyers, K.K. Chawla, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Prentice Hall,
1999.
References [23] T.H. Courtney, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1990.

[1] C.K. Chua, K.F. Leong, C.S. Lim, Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications
in Manufacturing, World Scientific Publishing Co Inc., 2003.