Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Polymer Testing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polytest

Material Properties

FDM process parameters influence over the mechanical properties of T

polymer specimens: A review
Diana Popescua,∗, Aurelian Zapciua, Catalin Amzab, Florin Baciuc, Rodica Marinescud
a
University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Department of Machine and Manufacturing Systems, Splaiul Independentei, 313, Sector 6, Bucharest, Romania
b
University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Department of Materials Technology and Welding, Splaiul Independentei, 313, Sector 6, Bucharest, Romania
c
University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Department of Strength Materials, Splaiul Independentei, 313, Sector 6, Bucharest, Romania
d
Colentina Clinical Hospital Bucharest, Department of Orthopedics II, Sos. Stefan cel Mare, 19-21, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Designing and manufacturing functional parts for fields such as engineering and medicine is a major goal of
Fused deposition modeling Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM). These activities should be supported by knowledge on how different settings
3D printing of process parameters impact the mechanical behavior of the products. However, obtaining this information is a
Mechanical properties quite complex task given the large variety of possible combinations of materials-3D printers-slicing software-
Testing specimens
process parameters. Thus, the importance of reviewing the current research on this topic for identifying practical
Process parameters
Tensile strength
and useful aspects, key process parameters and limitations, but also for understanding to what extent the results
of these researches are relevant and can be applied in further studies and real applications. A systematic lit-
erature search was performed based on classification according to the type of 3D printing polymer. The most
significant process parameters considered as influencing FDM specimens' tensile, compression, flexural or impact
strengths are discussed considering the results presented in the literature. A necessary distinction between the
mechanical properties of material and testing specimens (as given by producers and by experiments) and the
mechanical behavior of a FDM end-part is also made.

1. Introduction categories of materials and for different sets of process parameters/

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), also known as Fused Filament
Fabrication (FFF), Modeling Extrusion (ME), Fused Layer
Manufacturing (FLM) or 3D printing, is an Additive Manufacturing
(AM) process based on extrusion, the material being “selectively dis-
pensed through a nozzle or orifice” [1]. Although, currently, FDM parts
are mainly used as visual aids, presentation or educational models, and
fit and assembly models, manufacturing functional parts is gaining
importance in different fields [2,3]. In this context, the design for FDM
(i.e. how to design parts for better exploiting the advantages of FDM
and minimizing its limitations) gets increasing attention [4,5]. It is also
mandatory to be able to predict how the parts will behave when sub-
jected to mechanical loads in order to evaluate their suitability for a
given application. Hence, the analysis of the mechanical properties of
FDM parts represents an important subject of interest and research,
with some of the first studies on this topic dating back to 1996 [6].
Since then, the influence of process parameters on the mechanical
properties (tensile, compressive, flexural impact and fatigue strength)
of test specimens has been extensively investigated for different
manufacturing conditions.
FDM process parameters can be categorized as follows (see Fig. 1 for
an exemplification of some of these parameters):
• Slicing parameters – layer thickness/height, nozzle diameter/bead/
road width, flow rate, deposition speed, infill, raster orientation/
angle, raster pattern, air gaps (raster to raster, perimeter to raster),
number of contours/perimeters (contour width), top thickness,
bottom thickness;
• Building orientation – usually testing specimens are oriented hor-
izontally, vertically or laterally, but other orientations can be also
used;
• Temperature conditions – environment (or envelope) temperature,
extrusion temperature, bed or platform temperature.
All these affect the filament (inter-roads and intra-layers) bonding,
and thus influence the mechanical properties of FDM end-parts.
However, not all the FDM process parameters have the same impact on
mechanical properties, researchers focusing on some key parameters, as

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: diana@mix.mmi.pub.ro (D. Popescu), aurelianzapciu@yahoo.com (A. Zapciu), acata1@camis.pub.ro (C. Amza), florin.baciu@upb.ro (F. Baciu),
rodicamarinescu@ymail.com (R. Marinescu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.05.020
Received 12 April 2018; Accepted 16 May 2018
Available online 17 May 2018
0142-9418/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Popescu et al.
Fig. 1. FDM process parameter – illustration.
it will be seen in section 3 of this study. Considering the large number of
process variables for FDM, solutions for reducing the number of ex-
perimental runs have been applied and different optimization methods
have been used for identifying the best parameter combinations that
improve mechanical properties.
The systematic review of literature showed that a study like the
current one has not been previously conducted. The purpose of this
review is to summarize the most important research in the field and to
apply it to answer the following questions: Q1. What are the key
parameters influencing the mechanical properties of FDM parts? Q2.
How can the results of these studies be used in other research? Q3.
What are the limitations of the analyzed studies?
Therefore, it is not in the intention of the current review to compare
the mechanical properties values for different 3D printers and poly-
mers, but to systematize and discuss papers in which FDM process
parameters are investigated in rapport with different mechanical
properties. This literature review can represent a valuable and practical
starting point for those willing to start new investigations in this field
and for designing new materials, as the connection between materials,
process parameters and mechanical properties requires further research
to fully understanding all interactions and their effects. It should also
contribute to better planning of the experimental studies in this field, in
order to ensure that the results do not have only a limited value given
by specific manufacturing conditions.
2. Materials and methods
The systematic review was conducted based on the flow presented
in Fig. 2.
Searches were performed using scientific digital databases. The se-
lected time frame for the search was 2008–2017. However, important
and often cited papers published starting with 1996 were also included
in the review based in the references of reviewed articles.
The following combinations of keywords were used in search:
(“fused deposition modeling” OR “FDM”) AND (“parameters”) AND
(“mechanical properties” OR “mechanical behavior”). Only papers
written in the English language were selected. Supplementary filtering
based on topics provided by the advanced search tools of the databases
were also used. This initial search provided 112 records for Elsevier, 78
records for Web of Science, 63 records for Emerald and 128 records for
Springer. Duplicates removal performed using RefWorks reduced the
158
Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166
number of papers to 293. Then, the list of articles was divided among
authors for title and abstract screening. After these stages of filtering
and screening, a total of 79 records were kept for full text reading.
References of these papers produced other 15 papers on the topic which
were also fully read. 45 papers were excluded after text reading as they
did not offer enough information for the purpose of the current review
or they did not provide any new, more extensive or better documented
information relative to other studies.
The applied exclusion criteria referred to studies on non-commer-
cially available materials for the FDM process (as they are for the mo-
ment accesible only to very few users and not suitable yet for practical
applications), studies and reviews that focus on optimization methods
of process parameters (as they were already discussed in other papers),
studies investigating only one process parameter with less than three
assigned values levels or studies which do not present details on the 3D
printer type, material or testing process (as not being relevant for this
research purposes).
Finally, 49 papers were included in the research. The main in-
formation of interest in the screened studies was: research objective,
process parameters and number of levels attributed to each parameter,
type of polymer, type of 3D printer and testing standards used in each
research, as well as tested and/or analytically modeled mechanical
properties.
3. Results and discusssion
The reviewed papers were grouped into different categories of
polymers used in FDM: ABS (Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) – Table 1,
PLA (Polylactic acid) – Table 2, PEI (Polyetherimide)/PEEK (Polyether
ether ketone) – Table 3, others – Table 4, as well as into type of machine
(professional/low-cost) – in Table 1. This categorization was applied to
facilitate FDM users and researchers finding information when they
own a 3D printer and material, and want to know which studies present
details on the relationship between process parameters and mechanical
properties, or details on parameter settings optimal from a different
mechanical properties perspective.
PLA was presented in a separate table as it is a commonly used
material, especially by low-cost 3D printers. PEI (Ultem) and PEEK
were also considered in a distinct category, being materials suitable for
manufacturing functional end-parts.
Regarding the polymer type, the most used material in the surveyed
D. Popescu et al.
Fig. 2. Flow chart for studies' identification, screening and eligibility check.
papers was ABS (30 references), followed by PLA (9 references), PEI
and PEEK (6 references) and other materials (7 references). Some of
these studies are assessing mechanical properties of more than one
polymer, and thus they can be found in more than one table.
ABS specimens for testing different mechanical properties were ty-
pically manufactured using Stratasys machines (FDM1600, FDM1650,
FDM 3000, Dimension, Fortus, Vantage) with proprietary slicing soft-
ware. Examples of low-cost systems used for manufacturing ABS test
parts include Makerbot, Ultimaker, Lulzbot, Prusa Mendel, UPrint,
Mendel RepRap with slicing software such as Slic3r®, Cura® or
Skeinforge®.
Different levels of values for process parameters were set in these
researches for establishing their influence over different mechanical
properties, and for optimizing the outcomes based on trials/experi-
mental runs. Therefore, a valid comparison between the results of dif-
ferent studies cannot be made, even if the same material is employed,
when the manufacturing conditions and machines are different.
However, despite not having a common evaluation basis, some com-
parison attempts were made by certain authors by using the same
machine and different materials [25,55], but also when using different
machines, materials and software [24,34]. There are also researches
such as [10] or [43] that compare the mechanical properties of ABS
parts with the mechanical properties of ABS injection molded parts.
All reviewed studies are based on the proved fact that FDM parts are
anisotropic [10,56], the developed analytical models for assessing the
mechanical properties and the experimental studies being designed
accordingly. Classical laminate theory is used for describing the or-
thotropic properties of FDM parts [57].
Design of experiments (DoE) test protocols are planned by usually
159
Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166
assigning three levels to each studied process variable. As for optimi-
zation techniques, Taguchi methods, gray Taguchi method, ANOVA
(analysis of variance), CCD (Central Composite Design), GA (genetic
algorithm), fuzzy logic, ANN (artificial neural network) or full factorial
design are the most used [38,58–60].
As noted from the reviewed studies, the following FDM process
parameters are considered as most significantly influencing the me-
chanical properties: raster to raster air gap (recommendation being to
set it at a negative value), building orientation, raster angle, layer
thickness (smaller layer thickness increases the strength) and infill
percentage. Interactions of these parameters play a very important role
from the mechanical properties perspective [13,61]. In the same con-
text, classification of the parameters' importance was made by several
researchers. For instance, according to [17], orientation has a more
significant influence on mechanical properties than raster angle.
Raster angle influences the anisotropy of the FDM parts and,
therefore, their strength, being one of the most important process
parameter impacting mechanical behavior. Air gaps and infills de-
termine the dimension of the contact zone between filament roads and
layers, dictating the bond strength and thus the mechanical properties.
In the context of polymer filament bonding, temperature also has a
significant impact, however not studied enough so far, especially in
corroboration with other process parameters as imposed by real man-
ufacturing conditions [9,10,12,47].
Onwubolu et al. [23] reached the conclusion that, for improving
tensile strength of ABS specimens, the layer thickness and raster width
should be minimal. The same conclusion was stated in other studies
focusing on the influence of these two parameters, the production cost
being also brought into discussion in Ref. [17]. Li et al. [39], analyzing
 Table 1
Studies focused on ABS.
Study Research objectives/topic Materials, machine, standards Variable parameters Mechanical properties
D. Popescu et al.

FDM professional machines

Fodran, 1996 [6] Build style effect on mechanical ABS, FDM1600, ASTM D638 Fill gap, line width, slice thickness Tensile strength, yield strength, elongation,
properties modulus of elasticity
Bertoldi, 1998 [7] Mechanical characterization ABS, FDM1650, ASTM D5937-96 6 building orientations, 4 raster orientations Tensile strength, Young modulus, Poisson
ratio,
Es-said, 2000 [8] Effect of layer orientation on mechanical ABS P400, FDM 1650, ASTM D638, ASTM D790, 5 layer orientations (45/-45; 0; 45; 90; 45/0) Tensile strength, modulus of rupture, impact
properties ASTM D256-88 resistance
Rodriguez, 2001[9] Mechanical behavior experimental ABS P400, FDM1600, ASTM D3039 Fiber gap and flow rate Stress-strain behavior
investigation, mesostructure
characterization
Ahn, 2002[10] FDM parts mechanical characterization, ABS, FDM1650, ASTM D638, D3039 Raster orientation (transverse, axial), air gap, bead width, Tensile strength, compressive strength –
anisotropy color, model temperature comparison with injection molding
Lee, 2005[11] Process parameter optimization for ABS, FDM3000 Raster, air gap, raster width, layer thickness (3 levels each) Elastic behavior of a catapult model
flexible object manufacturing
Sun, 2008[12] Effect of processing conditions on ABS P400, FDM2000, ASTM D1184-98 Default settings for slicing parameters temperature profiles, Thermal analysis, 3-point bending test
filament bonding, mesostructure temperature variations with part building location (analytical model and experimental)
characterization
Sood, 2010[13] Process parameter effect on mechanical ABS P400, ISO R527:1966, ISO R178:1975 Layer thickness, orientation, raster angle, raster width and air Tensile, flexural and impact strength,
properties gap empirical models relating response and
process parameters are developed.
Fatimatuzahraa, Raster orientation effect on mechanical ABS, Dimension SST-768 Raster (axial (0°), crisscross (45°/-45°), cross (0°/90°) and Tensile strength, flexural strength, impact
2011[14] properties transverse (90°) strength
Sood, 2012[15] Process parameters settings for ABS P400, FDM Vantage SE machine, ISO 604–1973, Layer thickness, building orientation, raster angle, raster Compressive strength (analytical and
compressive strength improvement ISO R291:1977 width, air gap (3 levels each) experimental)
Croccolo, 2013[16] Predicting mechanical behavior when ABS-M30, ASTM D638-10 Raster pattern (dimensions, no. of contours: 1, 4, 7, 10, raster Tensile strength and stiffness (analytical and

160
knowing raster pattern angle), building orientation experimental)
Durgun, 2014[17] Experimental investigation for improving ABS P430, Dimension 3D printer, ISO 178:2006, ISO 5 raster angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°), 3 building orientation Tensile strength, flexural strength,
mechanical properties and production 527: 1997 (horizontal, vertical, perpendicular)
cost
Gorsky, 2014[18] Building orientation influence of impact ABS, Dimension BST 1200, PN-EN 10045-1 5 building orientations on x and y axes Impact strength
strength – experimental investigation
Baich, 2015 [19] Infill parameter effect on mechanical ABS plus-P430, Fortus 200mc Infill (low, high, double dense, solid) Tensile, compression, bending strength
properties and cost
Gorski, 2015 [20] Building orientation effect on tensile ABS, Dimension BST 1200, PN-EN ISO 527 2 orientation along x axis (0, 90) Y axis orientations (0–30, 5° Tensile strength
strength – experimental study increments)
Ziemian, 2012 [21] Anisotropic mechanical properties; ABS, Stratasys Vantage-i machine, ASTM D638, 4 raster orientations, defined machine default values for Tensile compressive, flexural impact and
Ziemian, 2015 [22] Tensile and fatigue behavior ASTM D3039, ASTM D790, ASTM D3479, ASTM parameters fatigue strength
D695, ASTM D256
Onwubolu, 2016[23] Mechanical properties characterization ABS, FDM Fortus 400mc, ISO R527:1966, ISO Layer thickness (2 levels), part orientation (2 levels), raster Tensile strength
and optimization R178:1975 angle (2 levels), raster width (4 levels), and air gap (2 levels:
positive and negative)
Low-cost 3D printers
Tymark, 2014[24] Mechanical properties in realistic ABS, PLA, Open-source printers (Lulzbot Prusa, Prusa Variations of layer thickness and raster orientations Tensile strength, elastic modulus
conditions for different open-source Mendel, Custom Most RepRap, Mendel RepRap),
printers ASTM D638, Slic3r®, Cura®, Skeinforge®
Ebel, 2014 [25] Mechanical properties comparison ABS, ABS, PLA, Felix 1.0e, CB-printer or uPrint Plus, DIN Infill pattern, infill percentage Tensile strength
PLA EN ISO 527
Rankouhi, 2016 [26] Failure analysis and mechanical ABS, Makerbot Replicator 2x, ASTM D638 Layer thickness (2 levels), raster orientations (3 levels) Tensile strength
characterization
Letcher, 2015 [27] Layer parameters effect on mechanical ABS, Makerbot Replicator 2x, ASTM D638 Number of layers (1–35), raster orientation Tensile strength, Elastic modulus, elongation
properties - experimental at break
Fernandez-Vincente, 2016 Infill effect on tensile strength for ABS, Prusa i3, ASTM D3039 Infill (3 levels), fill pattern (3 types) Tensile strength
[28] desktop 3D printer
(continued on next page)
Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166
D. Popescu et al. Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166

the mechanical behavior of PLA specimens when varying layer thick-

ness, showed that tensile strength is better for small values of layer

Tensile strength, failure strength, Poisson

thickness. The same conclusion is mentioned also in Ref. [13] – for ABS,
Compression, tensile, flexural strength [40,42] – for PLA or [47] – for PEEK. However, Ahn et al. [10] con-
Tensile strength, impact resistance

sidered that the layer thickness does not significantly influence ABS
sample mechanical properties.
Ziemian et al. [21,22] experimentally determined that, for ob-
Mechanical properties

ratio, Young modulus

taining the highest tensile strength, the raster should be aligned along
the longest dimension. Studying the effect of the same parameter (raster
Tensile strength

Tensile strength
Tensile strength

Tensile strength angle), Fatimatuzahraa et al. [14] noted that 0°/90° orientation is si-
milar to 45°/-45° orientation in terms of ABS specimens' tensile
strength. Tymrak et al. [24] reached the same conclusion for 0° raster,
also for ABS material.
Compressive behavior was studied by Ahn et al. [10] for ABS (the
Raster (45/-45; 30/-60; 15/-75; 0/90), building orientations
(flat, on-edge, up-right). process parameters constant on the
Width, thickness, infill density, no. of shells (3 levels each)

authors also proposing building orientation rules for ensuring the best
strength), but also in Refs. [9,15] and [19] – for ABS, [44,45] – for
PEEK, or [52] for PA. Moreover, Sood et al. [15] offered specific values
Different materials, color, 2 building orientations

of process parameters for obtaining the highest compression strength

same machine, but different between printers

(“layer thickness, orientation, raster angle, raster width and air gap as
Building orientations, infill (3 levels each)

0.254 mm, 0.036°, 59.44°, 0.422 mm and 0.00026 mm respectively”).

Baich et al. [19] experimentally studied the link between layer infill
and compression strength, flexural strength and tensile strength. Cost
Infill (0–100%, increment of 5%)

was taken also into account. Flexural strength was studied also by
Ziemian et al. [21,22], experimental testing showing that the ultimate
5 building orientations

strength value is highest for the 0° fiber orientation, followed by +45°/-

Variable parameters

45°, and 90° orientation. Researches like [13–14], [17], [30], [41] also
3 raster patterns

dealt with flexural strength. In Ref. [14], the experiments showed that
45°/-45° raster orientation provides better flexural strength than 0°/90°
orientations. Hernandez et al. [30] noted that raster angle also has an
important influence on specimens' flexural properties. Durgun et al.
[17] reached the conclusion that, for all their experimental runs, the
ABS, Makerbot Replicator 2x, ISO 527:2012, type 1B,
ABS P430, uPrint SE Plus, ASTM D695, ASTM D790,

GLase, Nylon, ABS, PC, Lulzbot TAZ 3.1 and 4, Cura®,

flexural strength was higher than tensile strength.

ABS, Uprint SE Plus, ASTMD638-02a standard Type

ABS (Ultimaker), PC (Fortus 360mc), ASTM D-638,

ABS, Lulzbot TAZ 4, Repetier with Slic3r®, ASTM

Impact strength was studied in Refs. [8,13,14,18,29,41]. In Alvarez

Different colors of Ninjaflex, SemiFlex, HIPS, T-
ABS, Replicator 2x, ASTM D638, ASTM D6110

et al. [29], experiments indicated that impact strength is maximal for

100% infill. Fatimatuzahraa et al. [14] noted that the value of impact
D638-10 (5 specimens for each type I-V)

strength is higher for crisscross (45°/-45°) orientation.

The number of contours (perimeters) influence over mechanical
Materials, machine, standards

properties was studied in Refs. [16,32,50]. Not only do the number of

contours influence the specimen stiffness and strength, but also the
infill density [32] and perimeter to raster air gap [43] have a strong
impact on these mechanical properties.
Due to the manufacturing process itself (i.e. the way in which each
ASTM D-5379
ASTM D 638

IV specimen

ASTM D638

layer is formed by depositing and bonding roads, and then by super-

posing and bonding layers), building orientation has a high impact on
mechanical properties. Different authors studied this relationship for
various materials and building directions [7,13,15–18,35,45,51,52].
For instance, Motaparti et al. [45] showed that “horizontal specimens
Tensile strength of partially filled parts
Failure analysis, anisotropy for tensile
Infill percentage effect on mechanical

Experimental characterization of ABS

and vertical specimens with (0°, 90°) raster angles have higher yield
Mechanical properties of RepRap 3D
specimens with different geometries

Mechanical properties of PC, ABS –

strength in comparison to those with (45°, −45°) raster angles”. Also,

Building orientations effect on

experimental characterization

for the same reason of layer formation, building orientation influence is

considered in combination with raster angle and raster pattern
Research objectives/topic

[13,15,17,23].
mechanical properties

parts tensile strength

Raster orientation/raster angle, as well as raster pattern were also

studied in Refs. [14,21,22,24,26,27]. 0° raster orientation ensures the
printed objects

best tensile strength (according to Letcher et al. [27], 10–18 MPa,

properties

elastic moduli 1000–1700 MPa, for ABS). As an example, Tymrak et al.

[24] reached the same conclusion that 0° raster ensures the highest
tensile strength. They used a low-cost machine and ABS material, the
measured tensile strength value being of 28.5 MPa (quite different than
Hernandez, 2016 [30]

in Ref. [27]), while the elastic modulus was 1807 MPa. In fact, test
Mahmood, 2017 [32]

Tanikella, 2017 [34]

Table 1 (continued)

Torrado, 2016 [31]

Cantrell, 2017 [35]

Alvarez, 2016 [29]

Ransey, 2017 [33]

results variability was noted in many of the reviewed papers. As an-

other example, Deng et al. [48] obtained lower tensile strength values
for PEEK in comparison to Wu et al. [44] for the same material at 100%
infill and the same values for layer thickness. Alvarez et al. [29] also
Study

observed that the measured tensile strength in their experiments was

significantly different from Tymrak et al. [24] measurements, on the

161
D. Popescu et al. Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166

Table 2
Studies focused on PLA.
Study Research objectives/topic Materials, machine, standards Variable parameters Mechanical properties

Tymark, 2014 Mechanical properties in realistic ABS, PLA, Open-source printers (Lulzbot Prusa, Variations of layer thickness and raster Tensile strength, elastic
[24] conditions for different open- Prusa Mendel, Custom Most RepRap, Mendel orientations modulus
source printers RepRap), ASTM D638, Slic3r®, Cura®, Skeinforge®
Ebel, 2014 Mechanical properties ABS, PLA, Felix 1.0e, CB-printer or uPrint Plus, DIN Infill pattern, infill percentage Tensile strength
[25] comparison ABS vs. PLA EN ISO 527
Wittbrodt, Color effect on mechanical PLA, Lultzbot TAZ, ASTM D638 5 colors (white, black, blue, gray, Tensile strength
2015 properties natural)
[36]
Lanzotti, 2015 Material properties of Makerbot PLA, Rep Rap Prusa i, ASTM D638 Layer thickness (2 levels), print Tensile strength, elastic
[37] 3D printer orientation (2 levels), infill percentage (3 modulus
levels)
Torres, 2015 Influences of process parameters PLA, Makerbot Replicator 2, ASTM E143 Layer thickness, infill density, post- Shear stress
[38] on torsion processing heat-treatment time at 100 °C
(3 levels each)
Li, 2016 [39] Process parameters effect on PLA, Makerbot Z18, ASTM D638 Individual assessment of: layer thickness Tensile strength
bonding degree and mechanical (7 values), deposition velocity (8 values),
properties infill rate (6 values)
Torres, 2016 Mechanical properties PLA, Replicator 2, ASTM D638, ASTM E143, ASTM Temperature, infill direction, infill Tensile strength
[40] optimization D648 percentage, layer thickness (2 levels for
each)
Liu, 2017 Process parameter effect on PLA, Makerbot Replicator 2, GB/T 1040.2–2006, Deposition orientation, layer thickness, Tensile strength, flexural
[41] mechanical properties GB/T 9341–2008, GB/T 1043.1–2008 deposition style, raster variation, raster strength, impact strength
gap (3 levels each)
Chacon, 2017 Mechanical properties of PLA PLA, WitBox desktop 3D printer, Cura®, ASTM 3 building orientations, 4 layer Tensile strength, flexural
[42] structures and optimal D638, ASTM D790 thicknesses, feed rate (3 levels) strength
parameters selection

same material, but on different machines. Furthermore, Tymrak et al.
[24] noted large variability in the mechanical properties when manu-
facturing PLA specimens on different 3D printers.
As a general observation, it is important for 3D printer owners to
have information on the mechanical properties of parts manufactured
with different parameter settings on their machines and from different
polymers. Furthermore, one should make sure to store the bulk poly-
mers under optimal conditions, as specified by the producer.
Material colors were analyzed by Ahn et al. [10] who considered
that color has no influence over the mechanical properties, by Witt-
brodt et al. [36] who showed that color influences the polymers per-
centage of cristallinity and thus impacts the strength (they used the
same material type, PLA, with different colors), and by Tanikella et al.
[34] who said that the variance in the color of the same material does
not significantly impact the tensile strength, but it is important when
different materials are compared.
Regarding other parameters than those mentioned above, it was
found that only a few studies focus on temperature conditions in
connection to slicing parameters or building orientation, more research
being necessary in this area as temperatures directly affect filament
bonding and the resulting mechanical resistance. Ahn et al. [10] said
envelope temperature has no influence on mechanical properties, Ro-
driguez et al. [9] observed insignificant influence of the envelope
temperature on mechanical properties. Aliheidari et al. [62] confirmed
the value of the ultimate tensile strength of ABS filament measured in
Ref. [9]. Sun et al. [12] noted that the envelope temperature and
convective conditions from the building space influence the filament
bonding, and thus the part strength. Xiaoyong et al. [47] also took into
account temperature, experimentally determining that, to obtain the
highest tensile strength, the platform temperature should be high
(130 °C, in their experiments) at 25 °C ambient temperature. The frac-
ture resistance of FDM ABS specimens for three levels of nozzle tem-
peratures.
Regarding the test methods, a standard [63] published in 2014 on
this subject just lists the recommended standards for metals, plastics
and ceramics used in AM. But, as observed also by Foster in Ref. [64],

Table 3
Studies focused on PEI and PEEK.
Study Research objectives/topic Materials, machine, standards Variable parameters Mechanical properties

Bagsik, 2011 Mechanical properties of Ultem 9085 Ultem 9085, Fortus 400mc, ASTM D638 Raster angles, raster-to-raster gap, Tensile strength,
[43] perimeter-to-raster gap (3 levels each), comparison to injection
layer thickness (2 levels) molding
Wu, 2015 Layer thickness and raster angle effect PEEK (custom 3D printer), ABS P430 (uPrint Layer thickness, raster angles (3 levels Tensile, compression,
[44] on mechanical properties, PEEK and SE 3D printer), GB/T 16421–1996, GB/T of values for each) bending strength
ABS comparison 9341–2008, GB/T1041-2008
Motaparti, 2016 Process parameters effect on Ultem 9085, Fortus 400mc, ASTM D790 Building orientations (2 levels), raster Compression strength
[45] compression properties angles (2 levels), air gap (3 levels), infill
(2 levels)
Zaldivar, 2017 Process conditions and orientation Ultem, Fortus 400 mc ASTM D638-03 type I Building orientation, Mechanical and thermal
[46] influence on mechanical and thermal Part location within chamber behavior
properties
Xiaoyong, 2017 Temperature effect on mechanical PEEK, RepRap 3D printer, 1BA tensile Temperature variations for bed and Tensile strength
[47] properties of PEEK, comparison to specimens, ISO 527-2 environment (3 values for each), filling
PLA ratio (2 values)
Deng, 2018 Mechanical properties of PEEK PEEK, custom-build FDM printer, ISO Printing temperature, Tensile strength, Young
[48] specimens 178:2001 printing speed, layer thickness, filling modulus, elongation
ratio (3 levels each)

162
D. Popescu et al. Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166

Table 4
Studies focused on PC (Polycarbonate), PA (Poliamide) and Zortrax proprietary materials.
Study Research objectives/topic Materials, machine, standards, etc. Variable parameters Mechanical properties

Masood, 2010 Tensile properties of PC PC, Vantage Stratasys Air gap, raster angle, raster Tensile strength
[49] width (3 levels each)
Hossain, 2013 Mechanical properties of FDM PC, Fortus 900 mc ASTM D638 Type I Raster angle, contour width, Tensile properties
[50] specimens by modifying process raster width, raster to raster
parameters air gap
Domingo-Espin, Mechanical property PC, Fortus 400mc, ASTM D638 6 building orientations Stiffness matrix, tensile strength,
2015 characterization and simulation of FEA simulation
[51] PC
Knoop, 2015 Mechanical and thermal properties PA12, Fortus 400mc, DIN EN ISO 527, ASTM D638 Layer thickness (3 levels), Tensile, bending, compressive
[52] of PA12 building orientation (3 strength, DSC analysis for
levels) thermal properties,
Szykiedans, 2016 Mechanical properties on a low- Zortrax, Z-ABS, Z-Ultrat, Z-glass-PETG, EN ISO 5 samples for each material Tensile strength
[53] cost 3D printer 527–4 type 5
Tanikella, 2017 Tensile strength of commercial Lulzbot TAZ 3.1 and 4, Ninjaflex (5 colors), Different extrusion Tensile strength
[34] materials SemiFlex (4 colors), HIPS (5 colors), T-Glass (5 temperature dependent on
colors), PC (1 color), Nylon (2 Types), ABS (1 material
color), ASTM D638, Cura®
Uddin, 2017 [54] Mechanical properties and failure Z-ABS, Zortrax M200, ASTM D638 Layer thickness, printing Tensile strength, compression
mechanisms plane, printing orientation (3 strength
levels each)

specific testing conditions for AM processes are not presented, making

comparisons very difficult, if not impossible. In the analyzed literature,
the following standards were typically used: ASTM D638 for tensile
strength, ASTM D790 for flexural strength, ASTM D256 for impact
strength and ASTM D695 for compression strength.
The medical field (instruments, implants, etc.) poses other research
questions, i.e. what is the impact of sterilization over the mechanical
properties of the parts and also how process parameters can be opti- Fig. 3. Flexural strength testing 3D printed specimens and 3D printed ortho-
mized from this perspective. There are some researches [65,66] and pedics retractors.
regulations in this field [67], however a thorough analysis (and opti-
mization) of polymers and process parameters in the sterilization con-
thickness: 0.19 mm, extrusion and bed temperatures: default values for
text has not been performed to the best of our knowledge.
Z-Ultrat, envelope temperature: 23 °C, 100% infill (full option), 2
Another important aspect to emphasise is that FDM designers and
perimeters (shells).
users should take into account the differences between the mechanical
Instron testing equipment up to 100 kN capacity was used in mea-
properties of bulk polymers (as presented by producers in the material
suring the flexural strength (Fig. 4a). The tests were performed in ac-
specifications sheet with the observation that testing conditions, part
cordance with ASTM D790 at a constant rate of 1.3 mm/min, as stated
design, etc. can produce different results), the mechanical properties of
in producer data sheet. Results showed that, for the manufacturing and
testing specimens and the mechanical performance of manufactured
test conditions used, the flexural strength of specimens (noted P1, P2,
end-parts. As mentioned, there are studies such as [24,53,68] in which
P3) was 39.9 MPa (Fig. 4b), in comparison with 50 MPa from producer
mechanical properties of bulk polymers and of test pieces are compared
data [70]. Fig. 4c shows the comparison of force-displacement response
with materials producers data. At the same time, this literature review
between the experimental results (noted Exp) and FEA (noted MEF)
identified only the study of Lee et al. [11] focusing both on the eva-
results for the retractor. The conclusion was that the resulted stiffness
luation of FDM process parameters and their optimization for im-
was not enough for fulfilling retractor's functional purpose. However, as
proving the mechanical performance of a real part (a compliant me-
FEA simulation was confirmed by experimental data, it can be run for
chanism, catapult).
optimizing retractor dimensions for obtaining a model with the re-
Therefore, a new research question on this topic should be if the
quired stiffness.
information on the mechanical properties specified by producer or
evaluated by a 3D printer user on test pieces can be used for predicting
the mechanical behavior of FDM end-parts. In this sense and con- 4. Conclusions and research perspectives
sidering also the increasing interest in 3D-printing functional medical
instruments [3,71–73], a study was performed for analyzing whether Understanding the interdependence of process parameters, material
the experimentally determined flexural strength of specimens built and the mechanical behavior of FDM specimens and parts is mandatory
from Z-Ultrat material on Zortrax M200 printer can be used for eval- for providing insights into assessing if the objects can fulfill the me-
uating the mechanical behavior of a J.B. Redler orthopedic retractor chanical requirements specific to the applications for which they are
[69] manufactured on the same machine, from the same polymer and in manufactured. This paper reviewed the literature focused on the in-
similar manufacturing conditions (building orientation, process para- fluence of different process parameters over the mechanical properties
meters, temperatures, etc.). As in Szykiedans et al. [53] for tensile of test specimens by considering their individual effect and/or com-
strength, the measured flexural strength was also compared with the bined effect. For different polymers, sets of values (levels) for process
value given by the producer [70]. Retractor testing data were compared parameters were assigned and specimen mechanical properties were
with data obtained from finite element analysis (FEA) run based on the measured. The analyzed studies are mostly based on experimental data;
measured flexural strength of specimens. however there are also papers in which analytical models were devel-
Bending test specimens and orthopedic surgical retractors (Fig. 3) oped.
were manufactured with the following process parameters: layer Detailed responses to this review questions were given in the dis-
cussion and results section. Here, these answers are summarized as

163
D. Popescu et al.
Fig. 4. Flexure testing for a medical instrument (retractor): a. experimental set-up, b. results for bending specimens, c. results for retractor specimens (comparison:
experimental – noted Exp and finite element method – noted MEF).
follows:
the analyzed researches:
• Q1. The key parameter influencing FDM parts' mechanical proper-
ties are: raster-to-raster air gap, raster angle, layer thickness, infill
density and build orientation. Given the complex influence of these
parameters on the mechanical properties of end-part, it is important
to focus on evaluating their joint effect as this corresponds to real
manufacturing conditions and applications.
• Q2. Considering the lack of specific information and standards on
test methods, and the large variety of 3D printers, materials and
material producers, one should use the results of these specific
studies with care, common evaluation and comparison criteria/basis
being necessary. Professional 3D printers and low-cost 3D printers
were used in experiments, as well as different polymers, slicing
software and process parameters values, which makes the attempt to
generalize the results almost impossible. In other words, practically
speaking, it is uncertain what results are obtained if a set of optimal
parameters for a machine/polymer/application combination is
transferred to other 3D printers (the issue of intra-3D printer
variability).
• Q3. The main limitations of the surveyed studies are given by the
aspects presented for Q2. Also, some process parameters such as
nozzle and bed temperatures are currently insufficiently studied in
the literature, this representing a niche for further studies. Also, the
variability in the mechanical properties noted by many authors
should be analyzed more deeply and explained in further research
work.
164
Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166
Some general conclusions and observations can be drawn from all
• The mechanical behavior of FDM parts is determined by the fila-
ment bonding, all process parameters affecting, directly or in-
directly, this thermally driven process. Nevertheless, the mechanical
properties are strongly affected by some process parameters, while
others have a smaller impact;
• Methods for reducing the number of experimental runs were applied
in various researches where the number of parameters and their
given values required a lot of time and effort for performing mea-
surements;
• Among the mechanical properties, tensile strength is evaluated the
most. It is reported that smaller values for layer thickness and raster
width improve the tensile strength. Also, mechanical properties are
improved by setting a negative raster to raster air gap;
• Mechanical properties optimization should not be performed by
focusing solely on establishing settings of process parameters, in-
stead the complex combination of polymer/3D printer/manu-
facturing conditions have to be considered;
• In literature, the dependence between FDM process parameters va-
lues and mechanical behavior was studied mainly for test speci-
mens. Therefore, further research should evaluate also the me-
chanical performances on FDM end-parts, and thus their suitability
for a particular application;
• The most investigated polymers in the studied literature are, in this
order: ABS, PLA, PEEK, PC and PEI. An interest in analyzing the
D. Popescu et al. Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166

mechanical behavior of PEI and PEEK specimens was observed la- 2015 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, 2A: Advanced
tely, most likely due to the trend of 3D printing functional parts; Manufacturing, Houston, Texas, USA, 2015.

•
[28] M. Fernandez-Vicente, W. Calle, S. Ferrandiz, A. Conejero, Effect of infill para-
Test standards for FDM specimens containing information on 3D meters on tensile mechanical behavior in desktop 3D printing, 3D Print. Addit.
printing conditions should be developed. Standardized parameters Manuf. 3 (3) (2016) 183–192.
may include layer thickness, perimeters and raster dimensions. [29] K.L. Alvarez, R.F. Lagos, M. Aizpun, Investigating the influence of infill percentage
on the mechanical properties of fused deposition modelled ABS parts, Ing. Invest. 36
(3) (2016) 110–116.
References [30] R. Hernandez, D. Slaughter, D. Whaley, J. Tate, B. Asiabanpour, Analyzing the
tensile, compressive, and flexural properties of 3D printed ABS P430 plastic based
on printing orientation using fused deposition modeling, Solid Freeform Fabrication
[1] ISO/ASTM 52900, Additive Manufacturing. Terminology, (2015).
2016, Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication
[2] A. Kreemer, Z.H. Moe, Rapid Prototyping Using FDM Systems, Handbook of
Symposium, 2016, pp. 939–950.
Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, Springer, 2014, pp. 2471–2483 ISBN
[31] A.R. Torrado, D.A. Roberson, Failure analysis and anisotropy evaluation of 3D-
978-1-4471-4669-8.
printed tensile test specimens of different geometries and print raster patterns, J.
[3] J.Y. Wong, A.C. Pfahnl, 3D printing of surgical instruments for long-duration space
Fail. Anal. Prev. 16 (1) (2016) 154–164.
missions, Aviat Space Environ. Med. 85 (7) (2014) 758–763.
[32] S. Mahmood, A.J. Qureshi, K.L. Goh, D. Talamona, Tensile strength of partially
[4] M.K. Thompson, et al., Design for additive manufacturing: trends, opportunities,
filled FFF printed parts: experimental results, Rapid Prototyp. J. 23 (1) (2017)
considerations, and constraints, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 65 (2) (2016)
122–128.
737–760 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.05.004.
[33] K. Raney, E. Lani, D.K. Kalla, Experimental characterization of the tensile strength
[5] G.A.O. Adam, D. Zimmer, On design for additive manufacturing: evaluating geo-
of ABS parts manufactured by fused deposition modeling process, Mater. Today:
metrical limitations, Rapid Prototyp. J. 21 (6) (2015) 662–670.
Proceedings 4 (2017) 7956–7961.
[6] E. Fodran, M. Koch, U. Menon, Mechanical and dimensional characteristics of fused
[34] N.G. Tanikella, B. Wittbrodt, J.M. Pearce, Tensile strength of commercial polymer
deposition modeling build styles, Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, 1996, pp.
materials for fused filament fabrication, 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 17 (2017) 40–47.
419–442.
[35] J. Cantrell, Experimental characterization of the mechanical properties of 3D
[7] M. Bertoldi, M. Yardimci, C. Pistor, S. Guceri, G. Sala, Mechanical characterization
printed ABS and polycarbonate parts, Adv. Opt. Met. Exp. Mech. 3 (2016) 89–105.
of parts processed via fused deposition, Proceedings of Solid Freeform Fabrication
[36] B. Wittbrodt, J.M. Pearce, The effects of PLA color on material properties of 3-D
Symposium, 1998, pp. 557–565.
printed components, Addit. Manuf. 8 (2015) 110–116.
[8] O.S. Es-Said, J. Foyos, R. Noorani, M. Mendelson, R. Marloth, B.A. Pregger, Effect of
[37] A. Lanzotti, M. Grasso, G. Staiano, M. Martorelli, The impact of process parameters
layer orientation on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples, Mater.
on mechanical properties of parts fabricated in PLA with an open-source 3-D
Manuf. Process. 15 (1) (2000) 107–122.
printer, Rapid Prototyp. J. 21 (2015) 604–617.
[9] J.F. Rodriguez, J.P. Thomas, J.E. Renaud, Mechanical behavior of acrylonitrile
[38] J. Torres, J. Cotelo, J. Karl, A.P. Gordon, Mechanical property optimization of FDM
butadiene styrene (ABS) fused deposition materials. Experimental Investigation,
PLA in shear with multiple objectives, JOM 67 (5) (2015) 1183–1193.
Rapid Prototyp. J. 7 (3) (2001) 148–158.
[39] H. Li, T. Wang, J. Sun, Z. Yu, The effect of process parameters in fused deposition
[10] S.-H. Ahn, M. Montero, D. Odell, S. Roundy, P.K. Wright, Anisotropic material
modelling on bonding degree and mechanical properties, Rapid Prototyp. J. 24 (1)
properties of fused deposition modeling ABS, Rapid Prototying J. 8 (4) (2002)
(2018) 80–92 https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2016-0090.
248–257.
[40] J. Torres, M. Cole, A. Owji, Z. DeMastry, A.P. Gordon, An approach for mechanical
[11] B.H. Lee, J. Abdullah, Z.A. Khan, Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for
property optimization of fused deposition modeling with polylactic acid via design
production of flexible ABS object, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169 (2005) 54–61.
of experiments, Rapid Prototyp. J. 22 (2) (2016) 387–404.
[12] Q. Sun, G.M. Rizvi, C.T. Bellehumeur, P. Gu, Effect of processing conditions on the
[41] X. Liu, M. Zhang, S. Li, J. Peng, Y. Hu, Mechanical property parametric appraisal of
bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments, Rapid Prototyp. J. 14 (2) (2008) 72–80.
fused deposition modeling parts based on the gray Taguchi method, Int. J. Adv.
[13] A.K. Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Parametric appraisal of mechanical property
Manuf. Technol. 89 (5–8) (2017) 2387–2397.
of fused deposition modelling processed parts, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 287–295.
[42] J.M. Chacon, M.A. Caminero, E. Garcıa-Plaza, P.J. Nunez, Additive manufacturing
[14] A.W. Fatimatuzahraa, B. Farahaina, W.A.Y. Yusoff, The effect of employing dif-
of PLA structures using fused deposition modelling: effect of process parameters on
ferent raster orientations on the mechanical properties and microstructure of Fused
mechanical properties and their optimal selection, Mater. Des. 124 (2017) 143–157.
Deposition Modeling parts, Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications
[43] A. Bagsik, V. Schoeppner, Mechanical properties of fused deposition modeling parts
(ISBEIA), IEEE Symposium, 2011, pp. 22–27.
manufactured with Ultem 9085, Proceedings of the ANTEC, Plastics: Annual
[15] K. Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Experimental investigation and empirical
Technical Conference Proceedings, ANTEC, 2011.
modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement, J. Adv. Res. 3
[44] W. Wu, P. Geng, G. Li, D. Zhao, H. Zhang, J. Zhao, Influence of layer thickness and
(2012) 81–90.
raster angle on the mechanical properties of 3d-printed PEEK and a comparative
[16] D. Croccolo, M. De Agostinis, G. Olmi, Experimental characterization and analytical
mechanical study between PEEK and ABS, Materials 8 (2015) 5834–5846.
modelling of the mechanical behaviour of fused deposition processed parts made of
[45] K.P. Motaparti, Effect of Build Parameters on Mechanical Properties of Ultem 9085
ABS-M30, Comput. Mater. Sci. 79 (2013) 506–518.
Parts by Fused Deposition Modeling, Masters Theses (2016), p. 7513 http://
[17] I. Durgun, R. Ertan, Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of
scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/7513.
mechanical properties and production cost, Rapid Prototyp. J. 20 (3) (2014)
[46] R.J. Zaldivar, et al., Influence of processing and orientation print effects on the
228–235.
mechanical and thermal behavior of 3d-printed ULTEM® 9085 material, Addit.
[18] F. Gorski, W. Kuczko, R. Wichniarek, Impact strength of ABS parts manufactured
Manuf. 13 (2017) 71–80.
using fused deposition modeling technology, Arch. Mech. Tech. Autom. 31 (1)
[47] S. Xiaoyong, C. Liangcheng, M. Honglin, G. Peng, B. Zhanwei, L. Cheng,
(2014) 1–12.
Experimental analysis of high temperature PEEK materials on 3D printing test, 9th
[19] L. Baich, G. Manogharan, Study of infill print parameters on mechanical strength
International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation,
and production cost-time of 3D printed ABS parts, International Solid Freeform
2017, pp. 13–16.
Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, 2015, pp. 209–218.
[48] X. Deng, et al., Mechanical properties optimization of poly-ether-ether-ketone via
[20] F. Górski, R. Wichniarek, W. Kuczko, J. Andrzejewski, Experimental determination
fused deposition modeling, Materials 11 216 (2018) 1–11.
of critical orientation of ABS parts manufactured using fused deposition modelling
[49] S.H. Masood, K. Mau, W.Q. Song, Tensile properties of processed FDM poly-
technology, J. Mach. Eng. 15 (2015) 121–132.
carbonate material, Mater. Sci. Forum 654–656 (2010) 2556–2559 DOI: 0.4028/
[21] C. Ziemian, M. Sharma, S. Ziemian, Anisotropic mechanical properties of ABS parts
www.scientific.net/MSF.654-656.2556.
fabricated by fused deposition modelling, in: Dr Murat Gokcek (Ed.), Mechanical
[50] M.S. Hossain, et al., Improving tensile mechanical properties of FDM-manufactured
Engineering, InTech, 2012available at: http://www.intechopen.com/books/
specimens via modifying build parameters, Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings,
mechanical-engineering/anisotropicmechanical-properties-of-abs-parts-fabricated-
2013, pp. 380–392.
by-fused-deposition-modeling (accessed Nov 12, 2017).
[51] M. Domingo-Espin, J.M. Puigoriol-Forcada, A.A. Garcia-Granada, J.L.S. Borros,
[22] S. Ziemian, M. Okwara, C.E. Ziemian, Tensile and fatigue behavior of layered ac-
G. Reyes, Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused deposition
rylonitrile butadiene styrene, Rapid Prototyp. J. 21 (2015) 270–278.
modeling Polycarbonate parts, Mater. Des. 83 (2015) 670–677.
[23] G.C. Onwubolu, F. Rayegani, Characterization and optimization of mechanical
[52] F. Knoop, V. Schoeppner, Mechanical and thermal properties of FDM parts manu-
properties of ABS parts manufactured by the fused deposition modelling process,
factured with polyamide 12, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, 2015, pp.
Int. J. Manuf. Eng. (2014) 5985311–13 https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/598531.
935–948.
[24] B.M. Tymrak, M. Kreiger, L.M. Pearce, Mechanical properties of components fab-
[53] K. Szykiedans, W. Credo, Mechanical properties of FDM and SLA low-cost 3-D
ricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental conditions,
prints, Procedia Eng. 136 (2016) 257–262.
Mater. Des. 58 (2014) 242–246.
[54] M. Uddin, M. Sidek, M. Faizal, R. Ghomashchi, A. Pramanik, Evaluating mechanical
[25] E. Ebel, T. Sinnemann, Fabrication of FDM 3D objects with ABS and PLA and de-
properties and failure mechanisms of fused deposition modeling acrylonitrile bu-
termination of their mechanical properties, RTejournal (2014) (accessed Sept 12,
tadiene styrene parts, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Trans. ASME 139 (8) (2017) 081018.
2017), https://www.rtejournal.de/ausgabe11/3872.
[55] G. Ciacala, et al., Comparison of ultem 9085 used in fused deposition modelling
[26] B. Rankouhi, S. Javadpour, F. Delfanian, T. Letcher, Failure analysis and mechan-
(FDM) with polytherimide blends, Materials 11 285 (2018) 1–14.
ical characterization of 3D printed ABS with respect to layer thickness and or-
[56] A. Bellini, S. Guceri, Mechanical characterization of parts fabricated using fused
ientation, J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 16 (2016) 467–481.
deposition modeling, Rapid Prototyp. J. 9 (4) (2003) 252–264.
[27] T. Lechter, B. Rankouhi, S. Javadpour, Experimental study of mechanical properties
[57] C. Casavola, A. Cazzato, V. Moramarco, C. Pappalettere, Orthotropic mechanical
of additively Manufactured abs plastic as a function of layer parameters, ASME
properties of fused deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate

165
D. Popescu et al.
theory, Mater. Des. 90 (2016) 453–458.
[58] J.P. Patel, C.P. Patel, U.J. Patel, A review on various approaches for process para-
meter optimization of fused deposition modeling (FDM) process and Taguchi ap-
proach for optimization, Int. J. Eng. Res. Afr. 2 (2) (2012) 361–365.
[59] A. Peng, X.M. Xiao, R. Yue, Process parameter optimization for fused deposition
modeling using response surface methodology combined with fuzzy inference
system, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73 (1–4) (2014) 87–100.
[60] V. Vijayaraghavan, et al., Process characterisation of 3D-printed FDM components
using improved evolutionary computational approach, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
78 (5–8) (2015) 781–793.
[61] H. Li, T. Wang, Y. Zhiqiang, The quantitative research of interaction between key
parameters and the effects on mechanical property in FDM, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
(2017) 91529541–15.
[62] N. Aliheidari, R. Tripuraneni, A. Ameli, S. Nadimpalli, Fracture resistance mea-
surement of fused deposition modeling 3D printed polymers, Polym. Test. 60 (2017)
94–101.
[63] ISO 17296–3, Additive Manufacturing – General Principles—part 3: Main
Characteristics and Corresponding Test Methods, (2014).
[64] Foster, A.M.; Materials Testing Standards for Additive Manufacturing of Polymer
Materials: State of the Art and Standards Applicability, NISTIR 8059, available at:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2015/NIST.IR.8059.pdf (accessed Oct 1,
2017).
[65] D. Popescu, D. Vlasceanu, L. Cursaru, F. Baciu, A. Hadar, Low-temperature
166
Polymer Testing 69 (2018) 157–166
sterilization influence on fused deposition modelling parts, Proc. Manuf. Syst. 11 (3)
(2016) 151–158.
[66] M. Perez, M. Block, D. Espalin, R. Wicker, Sterilization of FDM-manufactured parts,
33rd Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium – an Additive
Manufacturing Conference, vols. 6–8, 2012, pp. 285–296. August.
[67] Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Devices, Draft Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, (2016) available at: http://www.
fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/
3DPrintingofMedicalDevices/ (accessed Jan 12, 2017).
[68] C. Smith, R.W. Dean, Structural characteristics of fused deposition modeling,
Polym. Test. 32 (2013) 1306–1312.
[69] Innomed Orthopedic Instruments, Foot&Ankle Instruments, available at: http://
www.innomed.net/PDFsInnomed/InnoJBRedlerRet.pdf (accessed Dec 20, 2017).
[70] Z-ULTRAT_Material_Data_Sheet_eng.pdf, Zortrax Company, http://support.zortrax.
com/(accessed Jan 4, 2017).
[71] S. Kondor, et al., On demand additive manufacturing of a basic surgical kit, J. Med.
Dev. Trans. ASME 7 (3) (2013) 030916.
[72] T.M. Rankin, et al., Three dimensional printing surgical instruments: are we there
yet? J. Surg. Res. 189 (2) (2014) 193–197.
[73] D. Hoang, D. Perrault, M. Stevanovic, A. Ghiassi, Surgical applications of three-
dimensional printing: a review of the current literature & how to get started, Ann.
Transl. Med. 4 (23) (2016) 1–19 456.