The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08180-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Prediction and optimization of the yield stress of material extrusion

specimens made of ABS, using numerical simulation and experimental
tests
Carmita Camposeco‑Negrete1 · Pierre‑Yves Lavertu2 · Juan Lopez‑de‑Alda3

Received: 11 July 2021 / Accepted: 5 October 2021 / Published online: 16 October 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Material extrusion (ME) is an additive manufacturing technology employed for a wide variety of parts and several applica-
tions. Along with its benefits, there are drawbacks regarding ME, such as the anisotropy of specimens that provides different
values for mechanical properties and residual stresses. There is a need for optimizing the printing parameters since they
are linked to the mechanical behavior of printed parts. One way to reach that goal is by carrying out physical experiments
that grant accurate results but at a high cost. Another strategy is to simulate the printing process using specialized software.
Therefore, it is vital to determine if a simulation approach is robust enough to predict component’s performance. The present
study shows the optimization of process parameters to improve the yield strength of printed specimens made of acrylonitrile–
butadiene–styrene (ABS). Experimental runs and a numerical simulation based on thermo-mechanical analyses executed
in Digimat software are introduced. Taguchi method and analyses of variance (ANOVA) allowed estimating the effects of
process parameters and their optimal values to enhance coupon’s yield strength for both approaches. Optimum levels for
experimental and simulated results diverge for layer thickness and infill density. The difference between yield stress dictated
by physical and simulated values is below 9% for 75% of the experimental runs. Digimat’s simulations gave a good insight
into the material extrusion of plastic materials, but when used for the optimization of printing parameters, they provided
lower yield stress values than the ones obtained by experimental methods.

Keywords  Material extrusion of plastic materials · 3D printing · Optimization · Finite element analysis · Mechanical
properties

1 Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM), known as 3D printing, is a

technology used for manufacturing viable, strong, and stable
* Carmita Camposeco‑Negrete
carmitacamposeco@gmail.com components. One of AM’s advantages is it does not employ
any specific or high-priced tooling, thus operating with dif-
Pierre‑Yves Lavertu
Pierre-yves.lavertu@hexagon.com ferent materials [1, 2]. By 2025, the AM market will have
an economic impact on the order of US $230 billion to $550
Juan Lopez‑de‑Alda
juan.lopez-de-alda@hexagon.com billion per year. 3D printing influences how products are
designed and manufactured, and in the next years, its scope
1
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering will be extended to a vast assortment of goods [3].
and Science, Eduardo Monroy Cárdenas 2000, With regard to AM for polymers, material extrusion
50110 Toluca, Estado de México, Mexico
2
(ME) [4] is a process preferred by users due to its low cost
Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence, MSC Software and ease of building intricated geometries. ME is also rec-
Corporation, 4675 MacArthur Court, Newport Beach,
CA 92660, USA ognized as fused deposition modeling (FDM) since it is a
3 trademark name given by Stratasys Inc., or as fused filament
Hexagon Manufacturing Intelligence, MSC Software
Corporation, 16901 Judy Scholl Way, Round Rock, fabrication (FFF). ME has a wide variety of unreinforced
TX 78681, USA and reinforced polymers. Different companies manufacture

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
3658 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
and sell 3D printers under that technology, providing diverse
capabilities such as the types of filaments used, printing
working space, and accuracy.
FDM consists of material distributed through a nozzle.
That raw material is a filament that is heated, and then it
comes out from an outlet in a semisolid state. When extruded
on the building platform, it solidifies and bonds with adja-
cent material [5]. Like any other manufacturing technology,
FDM has its process parameters used to print a part. A vari-
ation of these operational parameters affects the outcome.
Researchers have studied the effects of 3D printing param-
eters on different responses, using various AM technologies
[1, 2, 6–27]. Specimens are made of acrylonitrile–butadi-
ene–styrene (ABS), polylactic acid (PLA), polyamide (PA)
6 and 12, polycarbonate (PC), a blend of PC and ABS, poly-
ether-ether-ketone (PEEK), or polyetherimide (PEI), among
other materials including reinforced polymers.
Layer thickness, infill pattern, deposition rate and infill
angle, air gap, number of contours, building orientation,
temperature, height and feed rate of the nozzle, and bed
temperature are the printing parameters considered in those
works. Their authors only modified the values of a reduced
number of printing parameters and fixed the remaining
ones. Different types of tests (tensile, compression, flexural,
torsional, impact, and fatigue) determine the relationship
between process parameters and mechanical performance.
Dimensional accuracy and processing time are other output
variables of the FDM process.
Researchers have selected a simulation approach to study
different aspects of ME of plastic materials, working on
diverse objectives. One of the proposals is to explore the
manufacturing process only from the perspective of material
deposition, without considering the mechanical properties of
the printed component. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD)
models are developed using specialized software (Abaqus,
ANSYS Fluent, COMSOL Multiphysics, Flow-3D, and Pol-
yflow). The aim is to simulate the polymer extrusion and
study different variables such as melting, pressurization,
feeding force, filament deformation, adhesion of layers, and
heat transfer. The materials used for those works are PLA,
ABS, and PEEK [28–40].
Another proposal is to evaluate the mechanical behav-
ior of 3D printed specimens, employing simulations that
do not recreate the material extrusion process but modify
the printing parameters (print speed, layer height, infill den-
sity, nozzle temperature). Tensile and compression tests are
simulated making use of applications like Abaqus, LS-Dyna,
and Matlab. Young modulus, elongation at break and yield
strength have a good agreement with experimental results
of coupons made of ABS, a blend of ABS and PC, 3D bio-
printed tissue, and bisphenol-A-polycarbonate [41–47].
Residual stresses are an outcome of the ME of plas-
tic materials. They modify the mechanical properties of
13
specimens, and should be considered for further analy-
sis regarding AM components. Studies related to residual
stresses comprehend simulations that predict them. Later,
mechanical properties are computed considering the
residual stresses built up while printing the part. Compu-
tational models are created in software, including Abaqus,
ANSYS, and Digimat. Common materials are ABS, nylon,
PLA, and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) reinforced with
carbon fibers (CF). Printing factors, such as print speed,
nozzle, and chamber temperature, are modified to forecast
the magnitude and location of residual stresses [48–53].
According to Cattenone et al. [54], there are two simu-
lation approaches to a ME process: filament and part level
simulations. The former provides information about bond-
ing and adhesion, and the latter predicts stresses and dis-
tortion of a part. For an accurate prediction of residual
stresses and distortion, a thermal analysis is performed
first. Then, a mechanical simulation reveals the values of
these variables based on thermal history.
During printing, when filaments are extruded and
deposited, different types of heat exchange take place. The
most significant ones are the heat exchange by convection
with the environment and conduction between adjacent
filaments and machine support [32]. Thermal history is
related to the development of residual thermal stresses,
responsible for altering the dimensional precision of com-
ponents and harming their mechanical behavior [53]. AM
parts could present issues associated with changes in their
thermal profile during the manufacturing process. The fila-
ment is deposited at a high temperature on a building plat-
form, causing a rapid cooling that affects the mechanical
properties of the part [55].
Most of the works previously mentioned only focus on
one aspect when simulating ME of plastic parts, without
considering all the stages. Material deposition, residual
stresses developed during printing, and prediction of the
mechanical properties are part of the FDM process. The
latter must take into account residual stresses and warp-
ing as outcomes of the 3D printing process. Moreover, a
small number of printing parameters are examined at a
time. Thus, the effect and influence of the ones that are
not included are unknown.
The present document outlines a study to optimize
five printing parameters (layer thickness, infill pattern,
infill density, and infill and orientation angles) in FDM of
specimens made of ABS, which dimensions correspond
to Type V coupon of ASTM D638-14 standard. The aim
is to define the levels of these parameters that improve the
yield strength of the specimen. Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio
and means graphs and an ANOVA estimated the optimal
values of ME parameters, as well as their percentage of
influence on yield strength.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
Optimization of process parameters is determined by
physical experiments and thermo-mechanical simulations
executed in Digimat software. Later, they are compared to
establish if a simulation approach provides a set of printing
parameters identical or close to the one given by experi-
mental trials. Finally, the yield strength is confirmed for the
optimal levels dictated by both approaches.
2 Experimental and simulation procedure
for ME
2.1 Specimen, materials, 3D printer specifications,
and process parameters
For experimental tests, part geometry and dimensions cor-
respond to the Type V coupon of the ASTM D638-14 stand-
ard. An F270 printer from Stratasys built all the coupons.
The part material is ABS-M30 of natural color. Stratasys
tested ABS tensile properties by printing specimens cor-
responding to Type I of the ASTM D638 standard. These
specimens were printed in two planes: XZ (on-edge) and
ZX (upright), with a layer thickness of 0.25 mm and solid
infill. Its tensile properties are listed in Table 1 [56]. The
printer needs a support material for building components
made of ABS. QSR is used as support material, soluble
when immersed in a tank filled with a solution. That mate-
rial is placed underneath the printed part, as shown in Fig. 1.
Stratasys F270 printers use GrabCAD software to pro-
cess a part file before sending it for printing. In this study,
the layer thickness, infill pattern, infill density, infill angle,
infill and orientation angles, and specimen’s position on the
building platform are modified. The values of these param-
eters are selected based on printer limitations. The settings
for printing speed and nozzle temperature are hidden and
cannot be changed by the user. Also, the number of contours
for each configuration is one of the parameters chosen by
the printer software, being its quantity aligned to the layer
thickness. The number of contours is one for a layer thick-
ness of 0.18 mm, two contours are required for a thickness
of 0.25 mm, and for 0.33 mm is three.
Table 1  ABS-M30 Tensile properties
Tensile properties: ASTM D638 XZ Orientation
Yield strength (MPa) 30.8
Elongation @ Yield (%) 1.8
Strength @ Break (MPa) 28.1
Elongation @ Break (%) 8.1
Elastic modulus (GPa) 2.4
3659
Fig. 1  Deposition of support material
With regard to printing parameters, the layer thickness
is the height of each deposited layer. The infill pattern cor-
responds to the design used to build the internal structure
of a specimen. Depending on the slicing software, there are
different infill patterns available (Fig. 2), and the user can
specify an angle at which all filaments are deposited. That
is called infill angle and is shown in Fig. 3, depicted by red
lines.
All the pieces have one of three locations displayed in
Fig. 4(a). The orientation angle is a variation of the position
for the printed part. As presented in Fig. 4, the construc-
tion plane corresponds to the XY. Several authors concluded
that coupons printed in that plane achieve the best printing
quality, good strength, and ductility [46, 57, 58]. Finally,
the platform position refers to the location in which a part
is built. For the F270 printer, its platform was divided into
nine spots (Fig. 4(b)). For the experiment, only three of them
are chosen. Position 1 is the closest to the door and the most
distant from the nozzle’s home position. Position 5 is in the
middle of the chamber, and position 9 is the closest to the
initial location of the nozzle.
ZX Orientation
27.5
1.7
26.8
1.8
2.3
13
3660 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
Fig. 2  Infill patterns available
for the F270 printer
Fig. 3  Infill angle of 45°, for
sparse—double dense infill pat-
tern and orientation angle of 0°
2.2 Design of the experiment
Genichi Taguchi established the Taguchi method to enhance
the quality of products and processes. That method consists
of several tools, and one of them is the orthogonal arrays
used for carrying out experimental studies. Signal-to-noise
(S/N) ratio and means graphs are instruments that allow
reducing process variability and output values. From the list
of available orthogonal arrays, L27 was implemented due to
the number of printing parameters to be analyzed (Table 2).
For each trial of the L27, three repetitions were executed
randomly, having 81 specimens.
The S/N ratio is selected depending on the studied vari-
able. For this work, the response variable is the specimen’s
yield strength, and the purpose is to maximize its value.
Therefore, the S/N ratio “larger the better” is calculated
according to Eq. 1.
Fig. 4  a Orientation angle,
and (b) platform position for
coupons
13
[(∑ ( ) )]
S∕N = −10log 1∕y2 ∕n (1)
2.3 Tensile tests
Trials were conducted at a testing speed of 1 mm/min, fol-
lowing the ASTM D638-14 standard. The tensile machine
employed was an Instron 600DX-F2-G1 (Fig. 5), and results
were imported to Excel software for calculating yield
strength for each coupon, using a 0.2% offset criterion.
Images of the fractured zone were analyzed using a Zeiss
stereomicroscope model Stemi 200-C, and the AxioVision
software. That analysis was used to obtain more information
about fracture characteristics and correlate them to printing
parameters and yield stress measured.
2.4 FE analysis of ME and simulation of tensile tests
All the CAE analyses presented in this work were executed
using Digimat. It is a platform that offers different programs
to analyze AM processes. Digimat-AM and Digimat-RP are
two software employed to obtain data of specimens built
by ME and their mechanical properties. Digimat-AM simu-
lates AM of polymers and composites, and it allows predict-
ing warpage and residual stresses of a printed part, among
other features. That software has a workflow consisting of
the stages described in Fig. 6.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671 3661

Table 2  Factors and levels for the L27 array 0.015mW/mm2°C. Steps for printing a part are detailed in
Factor Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 this stage. First is printing, then cooling, and finally, sup-
port removal. It is important to note that Digimat does not
Layer thickness (mm) 0.18 0.25 0.33 simulate the deposition of support material, but the analysis
Infill pattern Sparse Sparse—double dense Hexagram considers the part is attached to the building platform.
Infill density Low Medium High As previously mentioned in Section 2.2, the orthogonal
Infill angle (°) 0 45 90 array includes the platform position as a control factor. Digi-
Orientation angle (°) 0 45 90 mat-AM assumes that the specimen is centered in the build-
Platform position 1 5 9 ing platform (corresponding to level 2 of the L27). Because
platform position is the same in every trial, that factor was
removed from the L27, only for simulated tests.
In the definition stage, the ME process is selected Lastly, in the simulation stage, discretization of the
along with chamber dimensions of a generic printer. geometry is specified. The two approaches are filament and
Data corresponding to the F270 printer is a chamber of layer-by-layer. A filament discretization is performed, with
305 × 254 × 305  mm, with a moving platform. Digimat- a time increment of one second. A Dell equipment, with an
AM simulates a ME process using an inherent strain or a Intel Xeon processor at 3.70 GHz, 16 GB of RAM, and 8
thermo-mechanical approach, selecting the last one for the CPUs available, is the equipment employed for Digimat-AM
analysis. The final steps are the definition of geometry and simulations. Results given by the software consist of residual
its material. The former is provided in STL format. Digi- thermal stresses and specimen’s warpage. Figure 7 shows
mat platform has a module called Digimat-MX, which has those results for run 2 of the L27 array.
a material database. Digimat-MX connects to Digimat-AM The 27 runs were simulated, and their results are used as
for material selection. The material chosen is ABS, unfilled, inputs of the next process. Digimat-RP helps to map these
and amorphous. results to a FE model for a tensile test. Before using Digi-
Process parameters are defined in the manufacturing mat-RP, a tensile test model is created using Marc Mentat
stage. The F270 printer has different sensors that provide v2019. When the results from Digimat-AM are mapped, the
values of temperature when printing a part. For this study, tensile simulation is run and opened in Marc Mentat to get
the chamber temperature is constant, with a value of 90 °C, the value of yield stress. That procedure is carried out for
and the extrusion temperature of ABS is 207 °C. Room tem- each one of the 27 runs of the array.
perature is 23 °C, and the convection coefficient is equal to

Fig. 5  From left to right: Instron tensile machine, specimen before the test, fractured specimen

Fig. 6  Digimat-AM workflow
Definion Manufacturing Simulaon Results

13
3662 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671

Fig. 7  Results provided by Digimat-AM for run 2. Left: warpage. Right: residual thermal stress (von Mises)

Table 3  Specimen’s results from physical test and FE analysis

Yield stress
(MPa)

Run Layer thickness Infill pattern Infill density Infill angle Orientation Platform Physical test Simulation % difference
(mm) (°) angle position
(°)

1 0.18 Sparse Low 0 0 1 28.92 29.98 3.68

2 0.18 Sparse Medium 45 45 5 29.65 29.54 -0.38
3 0.18 Sparse High 90 90 9 31.28 29.65 -5.21
4 0.18 Sparse—D Low 45 90 9 29.92 29.66 -0.86
5 0.18 Sparse—D Medium 90 0 1 26.45 29.62 11.98
6 0.18 Sparse—D High 0 45 5 31.68 29.44 -7.06
7 0.18 Hexagram Low 90 45 5 28.75 29.68 3.24
8 0.18 Hexagram Medium 0 90 9 28.61 29.79 4.13
9 0.18 Hexagram High 45 0 1 29.89 29.77 -0.41
10 0.25 Sparse Low 0 0 5 32.31 30.44 -5.78
11 0.25 Sparse Medium 45 45 9 31.34 30.60 -2.35
12 0.25 Sparse High 90 90 1 32.03 30.85 -3.68
13 0.25 Sparse—D Low 45 90 1 27.99 30.74 9.82
14 0.25 Sparse—D Medium 90 0 5 32.42 30.95 -4.53
15 0.25 Sparse—D High 0 45 9 28.67 30.69 7.05
16 0.25 Hexagram Low 90 45 9 32.28 30.71 -4.85
17 0.25 Hexagram Medium 0 90 1 28.32 30.73 8.51
18 0.25 Hexagram High 45 0 5 30.35 31.01 2.18
19 0.33 Sparse Low 0 0 9 24.13 30.60 26.80
20 0.33 Sparse Medium 45 45 1 25.88 31.39 21.28
21 0.33 Sparse High 90 90 5 26.60 30.71 15.47
22 0.33 Sparse—D Low 45 90 5 26.08 30.59 17.30
23 0.33 Sparse—D Medium 90 0 9 26.81 30.62 14.21
24 0.33 Sparse—D High 0 45 1 29.09 30.36 4.38
25 0.33 Hexagram Low 90 45 1 29.71 31.39 5.66
26 0.33 Hexagram Medium 0 90 5 29.00 30.59 5.50
27 0.33 Hexagram High 45 0 9 30.69 30.55 -0.47

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
Fig. 8  Mean effects plot for
physical tests
3 Results and data analysis
Table  3 shows the results obtained during physical and
simulated tensile tests. For physical trials, the average of
the three repetitions is reported in that table. Figures 8 and
9 correspond to means analysis, and Figs. 10 and 11 to S/N
ratio graphs.
Concerning the yield stress of specimens subjected to
physical tests (Fig. 8), it is improved by selecting a layer
thickness of 0.25  mm (second level), a hexagram infill
Fig. 9  Mean effects plot for
simulated tests
3663
pattern orientated at 90° with a high infill density. The speci-
men must be printed oriented at 45°, centered in the building
platform (second level of platform position).
Table 4 presents the percentage of contribution of each
factor, for experimental and simulated scenarios. Tables 5
and 6 display the analyses of variance (ANOVA) conducted
to determine the data shown in Table 4, considering a con-
fidence level of 95%. As can be deducted from the percent-
ages of contribution, the layer thickness is the most signifi-
cant factor for yield stress. The infill density, infill pattern,
13
3664 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
Fig. 10  S/N ratio plot for physi-
cal tests
platform position, orientation, and infill angles have a con-
tribution lower than 10%.
A greater value of layer thickness is preferred for enhanc-
ing the yield stress of specimens [59–61]. Kerekes et al. [59]
found that a small layer thickness generated a considera-
ble quantity of pores or voids, diminishing the specimen’s
strength. Raut et al. [17] found the highest value of tensile
strength for coupons oriented at 45° on the build platform
due to the alignment of filaments concerning the direction
Fig. 11  S/N ratio plot for simu-
lated tests
13
in which the load is applied. Other authors concluded that
a large infill percentage is needed to raise the yield strength
of printed parts due to the large quantity of material used to
build a piece, which gives better stability [59, 60, 62].
The results presented in this section are in agreement with
the ones shown by previous research. It is worth mentioning
that former works did not consider all the process parameters
included in the L27 array of this research. However, three of
the variables studied by those authors (layer thickness, infill
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671 3665

Table 4  Percentage of contribution of printing parameters Layer thickness is the factor with the strongest contribu-
Factor Percentage of contribution
tion, followed by the infill angle, infill pattern, infill density,
and orientation angle (Table 4). S/N ratio plots for physi-
Experimental Simulated
cal and simulated trials (Figs. 10 and 11) show the same
Layer thickness (mm) 34.11 82.21 levels of printing parameters presented in means graphs
Infill pattern 3.60 1.66 (Figs. 8 and 9). Consequently, these values optimize the
Infill density 7.31 0.53 yield strength of coupons and are capable of lowering pro-
Infill angle (°) 1.39 1.71 cess variation.
Orientation angle (°) 2.43 0.13 Simulated tests have a good agreement with physical ten-
Platform position 2.96 Not applicable sile runs, except for run 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. They have
a percentage of difference higher than 10%. The fractured
zone of specimens 5, 19, and 20 are exhibited in Figs. 12
density, and orientation angle) are significant, according to and 13. For run 5, the upper layer does not have large voids.
the results shown in Table 3. Consequently, the levels of However, inner layers show a vast quantity of them. The
printing parameters found by the Taguchi method are coin- largest ones correspond to the infill pattern and density
cident with the values reported in other related works. selected to print the part (sparse—double dense, medium
In concordance with Fig. 9, the yield stress of simulated density). The smallest voids are the gaps between adjacent
specimens is enhanced using a layer thickness of 0.33 mm layers. They correlate to the geometry of the extruded fila-
(third level), a hexagram infill pattern orientated at 90° with ment and deposition strategy.
a medium infill density, and the coupon should be oriented As observed in Fig. 13, the upper layer of both speci-
at 45° on the building platform. The central position of the mens contains a significant number of voids. Outer con-
printing platform was used for all simulations and is optimal tours appear to be unbonded from the inner material, and a
according to experimental trials. similar situation is conferred when analyzing outer layers
for layers located at the middle of the specimen. The yield

Table 5  ANOVA for Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

experimental runs
Layer thickness 2 3.99 3.99 1.99 5.96 0.14
Infill pattern 2 0.42 0.42 0.21 0.63 0.61
Infill density 2 0.86 0.86 0.43 1.28 0.44
Infill angle 2 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.24 0.81
Orientation angle 2 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.43 0.70
Platform position 2 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.52 0.66
Layer thickness*Infill pattern 4 3.06 3.06 0.77 2.29 0.33
Layer thickness*Infill density 4 0.92 0.92 0.23 0.69 0.67
Layer thickness*Infill angle 4 0.99 0.99 0.25 0.74 0.65
Residual Error 2 0.67 0.67 0.33
Total 26 11.70

Table 6  ANOVA for simulated Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

runs
Layer thickness 2 0.57 0.57 0.28 29.29 0.00
Infill pattern 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.59 0.60
Infill density 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.84
Infill angle 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.61 0.59
Orientation angle 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.95
Layer thickness*Infill pattern 4 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.46 0.77
Layer thickness*Infill density 4 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.57 0.70
Layer thickness*Infill angle 4 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.42 0.79
Residual Error 4 0.04 0.04 0.01
Total 26 0.69

13
3666
Fig. 12  Fractured zone of speci-
men—run 5. a Specimen’s top
view. b Left side of fractured
zone. c Right side of fractured
zone
stress was negatively influenced, thus obtaining lower val-
ues than the ones predicted by simulation trials.
Regarding the levels of printing parameters that
enhance the specimen’s yield strength, layer thickness
and infill density have different values for the experi-
mental campaign and simulations. Layer thickness is the
most significant factor for physical and simulated tests.
The second level of that parameter provided the best yield
strength in the experimental campaign, and its third level
enhanced the studied variable in FE analysis. The number
of layers that a printed object has is related to the layer
Fig. 13  Fractured zone of specimen—run 19 (left) and run 20 (right). a Specimen’s top view. b Left side of fractured zone. c Right side of frac-
tured zone
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
thickness. Lesser layers are obtained with a large layer
thickness. When that parameter is reduced, the number
of layers rises.
Diverse authors have demonstrated that a high quantity
of layers increases residual thermal stresses of printed parts.
That is due to a substantial number of heating and cooling
cycles that the extruded material must face until a piece is
built [32, 63, 64]. Therefore, the yield stress of specimens
is affected as a consequence of residual thermal stresses. On
the other hand, thicker filaments also contribute to higher
residual stresses [36]. Therefore, the second level of layer
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
Fig. 14  Fractured zone of speci-
mens. Left: medium infill den-
sity. Right: high infill density
thickness supplies the best mechanical properties accord-
ing to physical tests because the number of layers and their
thickness is not the smallest among all the tested values.
As shown in Figs. 12 and 13, printed specimens exhibited
flaws that are not simulated in the software accurately. Then,
different optimal levels are obtained for experimental and
simulated campaigns.
About infill density, its third level imparts the highest
yield strength for experimental tests, and its second level is
the best for simulation results. Figure 14 presents a compari-
son between two specimens having the same layer thickness
(0.33 mm) but different infill density. Specimen (a) has a
medium infill density (second level), and specimen (b) pos-
sess a high infill density (third level). From the images, it is
clear that a greater infill density reduced the number of voids
(circled in red), thus improving its yield strength.
3.1 Confirmation tests
Owing to the contrast between the set of printing parameters
dictated by physical experiments, and the one of simulated
trials, it is vital to test both configurations for obtaining
the yield strength of specimens and perform a comparison.
Coupons for these two sets were printed three times each
Table 7  Results from confirmation tests
Configuration Yield strength (MPa)
Physical test Simulation test
Experimental 35.63
Simulated 32.52 31.61
3667
and examined using the equipment described in Section 2.
For the configuration corresponding to simulated results,
an analysis in Digimat and Marc Mentat was executed as
specified in that section. Results are introduced in Table 7.
As stated in Table 7, the configuration obtained by physi-
cal experiments reported a greater value of yield stress. The
set produced by simulated tests achieved a lower result for
both physical and digital trials. The percentage of difference
between sets is 8.73%. Yield stress values are higher than
any of the outcomes registered for the runs of the orthogonal
array. As a consequence, the Taguchi method was effective
in finding an optimum set of printing parameters. Figure 15
shows images of a specimen built using the best printing
parameters. A reduced number of voids helped to increase
the yield strength of the part.
Simulations performed in Digimat and Marc Mentat
software gave different values of yield stress for all the
specimens when compared to an experimental campaign.
Digimat AM computes deflection and warpage of the part
once the printing process finishes, as well as residual ther-
mal stresses. The latter is the principal cause of having
distorted geometries.
The F270 printer needs to add support material to
print parts made of ABS. Digimat AM does not simulate
the extrusion and deposition of support material (QSR).
That material is in the middle of the building platform
and the specimen. Therefore, heat exchange between QSR
and ABS is not considered for simulated results, and it’s
expected to be one of the causes that originated diverse
values for yield stress. Furthermore, the 3D printer cleans
their nozzles (one for support and the other for model
13
3668 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
Fig. 15  Fractured zone of
specimen—best configuration.
a Specimen’s top view. b Left
side of fractured zone. c Right
side of fractured zone
material), building a sacrificial tower before extruding
a new layer of a part. This process is excluded from FE
analysis, and the time it takes to print the tower alters heat
exchange among previously deposited layers (layers have
more time to cool down until a new heated layer is depos-
ited on top of them).
Yield stress reported by Stratasys for ABS-M30 is
30.8 MPa and 27.5 MPa, depending on the plane used
to print the specimen, as introduced in Table 1 [56]. Val-
ues computed for the confirmation test are higher than the
results obtained by Stratasys. Consequently, a proper con-
figuration of printing parameters enhances the mechanical
performance of FDM parts.
4 Conclusions
The present work outlined an optimization of process
parameters related to ME of plastic materials to improve
the yield strength of specimens made of ABS and subjected
to a tensile load according to the ASTM D638 standard.
Since experimental studies are time- and cost-consuming,
a simulation approach consisting of FE analysis executed
in Digimat and Marc Mentat software is introduced, and its
outcomes are matched to the ones of physical trials.
Taguchi method and an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
stated the best values of printing parameters for both
13
approaches and their influence on the response. Layer
thickness owns the highest effect on yield stress. How-
ever, its optimum value differed for physical and simulated
tests. Infill density is the other parameter that diverged,
but it possesses a slight influence. Overall, experimental
results are in good agreement with FE analysis. However,
variables not considered by simulation software caused
a variation in the outcome, such as delamination, exces-
sive voids, and heat exchange between support and model
material. It is feasible to simulate the ME process and
determine the printing parameters to improve the mechani-
cal response. Nevertheless, that set is not optimal. In the
simulation of the FDM process, not all the physical vari-
ables are considered by the software.
In future work, warpage and residual stresses will be
studied. Since they are part of the 3D printing process,
they affect the mechanical properties of AM components.
Acknowledgements  The author would like to thank Tecnologico de
Monterrey Campus Toluca for providing a 3D printer and material for
conducting the experimental trials. Thanks to MSC Software corpora-
tion for contributing with a trial license of Digimat and Marc Mentat
software.
Data availability  The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during
the current study are not publicly available as data also form part of
an ongoing study but are available from the corresponding author on
reasonable request.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
Declarations  Engineering, ICSSE 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICSSE.​2017.​
Competing interests  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Alaimo G, Marconi S, Costato L, Auricchio F (2017) Influence
of meso-structure and chemical composition on FDM 3D-printed
parts. Compos Part B Eng 113:371–380. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​
COMPO​SITESB.​2017.​01.​019
2. Conway KM, Pataky GJ (2019) Crazing in additively manufac-
tured acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Eng Fract Mech. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​engfr​acmech.​2019.​02.​020
3. Manyika J, Chui M, Bughin J, et al Disruptive technologies:
advances that will transform life, business, and the global econ-
omy. In: McKinsey Glob. Inst. https://​www.​mckin​sey.​com/​~/​
media/​McKin​sey/​Busin​ess Functions/McKinsey Digital/Our
Insights/Disruptive technologies/MGI_Disruptive_technolo-
gies_Full_report_May2013.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2020
4. 52900:2015 A (2015) Standard Terminology for Additive Manu-
facturing – General Principles – Terminology. ASTM Int. https://​
www.​iso.​org/​stand​ard/​69669.​html. Accessed 16 Dec 2020
5. Rashid A (2018) Additive manufacturing technologies. In: Chatti
S, Tolio T (eds) CIRP Encyclopedia of production engineering.
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–9
6. Yao T, Deng Z, Zhang K, Li S (2019) A method to predict the
ultimate tensile strength of 3D printing polylactic acid (PLA)
materials with different printing orientations. Compos Part B Eng.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compo​sitesb.​2019.​01.​025
7. Zhang J, Wang P, Gao RX (2019) Deep learning-based tensile
strength prediction in fused deposition modeling. Comput Ind.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compi​nd.​2019.​01.​011
8. Wankhede V, Jagetiya D, Joshi A, Chaudhari R (2019) Experi-
mental investigation of FDM process parameters using Tagu-
chi analysis. Mater Today Proc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​
2019.​09.​078
9. Deswal S, Narang R, Chhabra D (2019) Modeling and para-
metric optimization of FDM 3D printing process using hybrid
techniques for enhancing dimensional preciseness. Int J Interact
Des Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12008-​019-​00536-z
10. Ding S, Zou B, Wang P, Ding H (2019) Effects of nozzle tem-
perature and building orientation on mechanical properties and
microstructure of PEEK and PEI printed by 3D-FDM. Polym
Test. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​polym​ertes​ting.​2019.​105948
11. Hallmann M, Goetz S, Schleich B, Wartzack S (2019) Optimiza-
tion of build time and support material quantity for the additive
manufacturing of non-assembly mechanisms. Procedia CIRP
84:271–276. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​procir.​2019.​03.​197
12. Tanoto YY, Anggono J, Siahaan IH, Budiman W (2017) The
effect of orientation difference in fused deposition modeling of
ABS polymer on the processing time, dimension accuracy, and
strength. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1063/1.​49683​04
13. Alafaghani A, Qattawi A, Alrawi B, Guzman A (2017) Experi-
mental optimization of fused deposition modelling processing
parameters: a design-for-manufacturing approach. procedia
manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​2017.​07.​079
14. Huynh HN, Nguyen AT, Ha NL, Ha Thai TT (2017) Application
of fuzzy Taguchi method to improve the dimensional accuracy
of Fused Deposition Modeling processed product. In: Proceed-
ings - 2017 International Conference on System Science and
3669
80308​47
15. Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL (2016) Optimization
of fused deposition modeling process parameters for dimen-
sional accuracy using I-optimality criterion. Meas J Int Meas
Confed. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​measu​rement.​2015.​12.​011
16. Balla VK, Kate KH, Satyavolu J, et al (2019) Additive manufac-
turing of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites: Process-
ing and prospects. Compos. Part B Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
compo​sitesb.​2019.​106956
17. Raut S, Jatti VS, Khedkar NK, Singh TP (2014) Investigation of
the effect of built orientation on mechanical properties and total
cost of FDM parts. Procedia Mater Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
mspro.​2014.​07.​146
18. Peng A, Xiao X, Yue R (2014) Process parameter optimization for
fused deposition modeling using response surface methodology
combined with fuzzy inference system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00170-​014-​5796-5
19. Zandi MD, Jerez-Mesa R, Lluma-Fuentes J et al (2020) Study of
the manufacturing process effects of fused filament fabrication
and injection molding on tensile properties of composite PLA-
wood parts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​020-​05522-4
20. Wang S, Ma Y, Deng Z et al (2020) Effects of fused deposition
modeling process parameters on tensile, dynamic mechanical
properties of 3D printed polylactic acid materials. Polym Test.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​polym​ertes​ting.​2020.​106483
21. Hassanifard S, Hashemi SM (2020) On the strain-life fatigue
parameters of additive manufactured plastic materials through
fused filament fabrication process. Addit Manuf 32:100973.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2019.​100973
22. Verbeeten WMH, Lorenzo-Bañuelos M, Arribas-Subiñas PJ
(2020) Anisotropic rate-dependent mechanical behavior of
Poly(Lactic Acid) processed by Material Extrusion Additive
Manufacturing. Addit Manuf 31:100968. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​addma.​2019.​100968
23. Chen Y, Neff M, McEvoy B et al (2019) 3D printed polymers are
less stable than injection moulded counterparts when exposed to
terminal sterilization processes using novel vaporized hydrogen
peroxide and electron beam processes. Polymer (Guildf). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​polym​er.​2019.​121870
24. Zhang X, Chen L, Mulholland T, Osswald TA (2019) Char-
acterization of mechanical properties and fracture mode of
PLA and copper/PLA composite part manufactured by fused
deposition modeling. SN Appl Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s42452-​019-​0639-5
25. Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL (2017) Experimental
investigation of time-dependent mechanical properties of PC-ABS
prototypes processed by FDM additive manufacturing process.
Mater Lett. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matlet.​2017.​01.​104
26. Zhao Y, Chen Y, Zhou Y (2019) Novel mechanical models of
tensile strength and elastic property of FDM AM PLA materials:
experimental and theoretical analyses. Mater Des. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​matdes.​2019.​108089
27. Beniak J, Holdy M, Križan P, Matúš M (2019) Research on
parameters optimization for the additive manufacturing process.
Transp Res Procedia 40:144–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​trpro.​
2019.​07.​024
28. Comminal R, Serdeczny MP, Pedersen DB, Spangenberg J (2019)
Motion planning and numerical simulation of material deposi-
tion at corners in extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2019.​06.​005
29. Pigeonneau F, Xu D, Vincent M, Agassant JF (2020) Heating and
flow computations of an amorphous polymer in the liquefier of
a material extrusion 3D printer. Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​addma.​2019.​101001
13
3670 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
30. Hebda M, McIlroy C, Whiteside B et al (2019) A method for
predicting geometric characteristics of polymer deposition dur-
ing fused-filament-fabrication. Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​addma.​2019.​02.​013
31. D’Amico A, Peterson AM (2018) An adaptable FEA simulation
of material extrusion additive manufacturing heat transfer in 3D.
Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2018.​02.​021
32. Costa SF, Duarte FM, Covas JA (2017) Estimation of filament
temperature and adhesion development in fused deposition tech-
niques. J Mater Process Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jmatp​
rotec.​2017.​02.​026
33. Phan DD, Horner JS, Swain ZR et al (2020) Computational fluid
dynamics simulation of the melting process in the fused filament
fabrication additive manufacturing technique. Addit Manuf.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2020.​101161
34. Serdeczny MP, Comminal R, Mollah MT et al (2020) Numerical
modeling of the polymer flow through the hot-end in filament-
based material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2020.​101454
35. Comminal R, Serdeczny MP, Pedersen DB, Spangenberg J (2018)
Numerical modeling of the strand deposition flow in extrusion-
based additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​addma.​2017.​12.​013
36. Costa SF, Duarte FM, Covas JA (2015) Thermal conditions affect-
ing heat transfer in FDM/FFE: a contribution towards the numeri-
cal modelling of the process. Virtual Phys Prototyp. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​17452​759.​2014.​984042
37. D’Amico T, Peterson AM (2020) Bead parameterization of desk-
top and room-scale material extrusion additive manufacturing:
how print speed and thermal properties affect heat transfer. Addit
Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2020.​101239
38. Lepoivre A, Boyard N, Levy A, Sobotka V (2020) Heat transfer
and adhesion study for the FFF additive manufacturing process.
In: Procedia Manufacturing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​
2020.​04.​291
39. Wang L, Chen X, Kang S et al (2020) Meta-modeling of high-
fidelity FEA simulation for efficient product and process design
in additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
addma.​2020.​101211
40. Roy M, Wodo O (2020) Data-driven modeling of thermal his-
tory in additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​addma.​2019.​101017
41. Zouaoui M, Labergere C, Gardan J, et al (2019) Numerical
prediction of 3d printed specimens based on a strengthening
method of fracture toughness. In: Procedia CIRP. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​2020.​04.​291
42. Soufivand AA, Abolfathi N, Hashemi SA, Lee SJ (2020) Predic-
tion of mechanical behavior of 3D bioprinted tissue-engineered
scaffolds using finite element method (FEM) analysis. Addit
Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2020.​101181
43. Fang L, Yan Y, Agarwal O et al (2020) Processing-structure-
property relationships of bisphenol-A-polycarbonate samples
prepared by fused filament fabrication. Addit Manuf. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2020.​101285
44. Webbe Kerekes T, Lim H, Joe WY, Yun GJ (2019) Characteri-
zation of process–deformation/damage property relationship of
fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D-printed specimens. Addit
Manuf 25:532–544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​ADDMA.​2018.​11.​
008
45. Ghandriz R, Hart K, Li J (2020) Extended finite element method
(XFEM) modeling of fracture in additively manufactured poly-
mers. Addit Manuf. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​a ddma.​2 019.​
100945
13
46. Hasanov S, Gupta A, Nasirov A, Fidan I (2020) Mechanical char-
acterization of functionally graded materials produced by the
fused filament fabrication process. J Manuf Process. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jmapro.​2020.​09.​011
47. Tabacu S, Ducu C (2020) Numerical investigations of 3D printed
structures under compressive loads using damage and fracture
criterion: experiments, parameter identification, and validation.
Extrem Mech Lett. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eml.​2020.​100775
48. Costanzo A, Spotorno R, Candal MV et  al (2020) Residual
alignment and its effect on weld strength in material-extrusion
3D-printing of polylactic acid. Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​addma.​2020.​101415
49. Brenken B, Barocio E, Favaloro A et al (2019) Development and
validation of extrusion deposition additive manufacturing process
simulations. Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2018.​
10.​041
50. Sunny SF, Gleason GH, Malik AS (2019) Comparison of numer-
ical methods for fluid-structure interaction simulation of fused
deposition modeled nylon components. In: Procedia Manufactur-
ing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​2019.​06.​215
51. Zhou Y, Lu H, Wang G et al (2020) Voxelization modelling based
finite element simulation and process parameter optimization for
Fused Filament Fabrication. Mater Des. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
matdes.​2019.​108409
52. El Moumen A, Tarfaoui M, Lafdi K (2019) Modelling of the tem-
perature and residual stress fields during 3D printing of polymer
composites. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​019-​03965-y
53. Quelho de Macedo R, Ferreira RTL, Jayachandran K (2019)
Determination of mechanical properties of FFF 3D printed mate-
rial by assessing void volume fraction, cooling rate and resid-
ual thermal stresses. Rapid Prototyp J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
RPJ-​08-​2018-​0192
54. Cattenone A, Morganti S, Alaimo G, Auricchio F (2019) Finite
element analysis of additive manufacturing based on fused deposi-
tion modeling: distortions prediction and comparison with experi-
mental data. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans ASME. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1115/1.​40416​26
55. Courter B, Savane V, Bi J, et al (2017) Finite element simula-
tion of the fused deposition modelling process. NAFEMS World
Congr Stock Sweden, June. https://​www.​nafems.​org/​publi​catio​ns/​
resou​rce_​center/​nwc17_​469/
56. Stratasys Ltd. (2019) ABS Data Sheet. https://​www.​strat​asys.​com/​
mater​ials/​search/​abs. Accessed 31 Oct 2019
57. Torrado AR, Roberson DA (2016) Failure analysis and anisotropy
evaluation of 3D-printed tensile test specimens of different geom-
etries and print raster patterns. J Fail Anal Prev. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11668-​016-​0067-4
58. Fernandez-Vicente M, Calle W, Ferrandiz S, Conejero A (2016)
Effect of infill parameters on tensile mechanical behavior in desk-
top 3D printing. 3D Print Addit Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​
3dp.​2015.​0036
59. Webbe Kerekes T, Lim H, Joe WY, Yun GJ (2019) Characteri-
zation of process–deformation/damage property relationship of
fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D-printed specimens. Addit
Manuf. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​addma.​2018.​11.​008
60. Samykano M, Selvamani SK, Kadirgama K et  al (2019)
Mechanical property of FDM printed ABS: influence of printing
parameters. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​019-​03313-0
61. Elmushyakhi A (2020) Freeze-thaw stabilization of fused deposi-
tion modeling 3D-printed SABIC structures. J King Saud Univ
- Eng Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jksues.​2020.​09.​002
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2022) 118:3657–3671
62. Abeykoon C, Sri-Amphorn P, Fernando A (2020) Optimization
of fused deposition modeling parameters for improved PLA and
ABS 3D printed structures. Int J Light Mater Manuf. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​ijlmm.​2020.​03.​003
63. Li H, Wang T, Li Q et al (2018) A quantitative investigation of
distortion of polylactic acid/PLA) part in FDM from the point of
interface residual stress. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s00170-​017-​0820-1
3671
64. Zhang W, Wu AS, Sun J et al (2017) Characterization of residual
stress and deformation in additively manufactured ABS polymer
and composite specimens. Compos Sci Technol. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​comps​citech.​2017.​07.​017
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13