Next Article in Journal
Super-Toughed PLA Blown Film with Enhanced Gas Barrier Property Available for Packaging and Agricultural Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Physical and Mechanical Properties of a Bulk Lightweight Concrete with Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Beads and Soft Marine Clay
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/ma12101664
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Effect of Material and Process Specific Factors on the Strength of Printed Parts in Fused Filament Fabrication: A Review of Recent Developments

by
Muhammad Harris
1,
Johan Potgieter
2,
Richard Archer
3 and
Khalid Mahmood Arif
1,*
1
School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Auckland 0632, New Zealand
2
Massey Agritech Partnership Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
3
School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2019, 12(10), 1664; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12101664
Submission received: 14 April 2019 / Revised: 12 May 2019 / Accepted: 16 May 2019 / Published: 22 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Manufacturing Processes and Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Additive manufacturing (AM) is rapidly evolving as the most comprehensive tool to manufacture products ranging from prototypes to various end-user applications. Fused filament fabrication (FFF) is the most widely used AM technique due to its ability to manufacture complex and relatively high strength parts from many low-cost materials. Generally, the high strength of the printed parts in FFF is attributed to the research in materials and respective process factors (process variables, physical setup, and ambient temperature). However, these factors have not been rigorously reviewed for analyzing their effects on the strength and ductility of different classes of materials. This review systematically elaborates the relationship between materials and the corresponding process factors. The main focus is on the strength and ductility. A hierarchical approach is used to analyze the materials, process parameters, and void control before identifying existing research gaps and future research directions.

1. Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing [1,2,3,4,5] is the next generation manufacturing technology that allows manufacturing of complex parts without requiring specialized tooling [6,7]. Therefore, AM is currently being used in a wide range of applications such as high value consumer products [8], food [9], electronics [10,11,12], machinery [13], aerospace industry [14,15], automobiles [16,17], medical and dental applications [4,18,19,20,21,22], textile [23,24,25], construction [26,27,28,29], education [30], and architecture [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. AM has various forms that share the same concept of layer-by-layer manufacturing [30,40,41,42,43,44]. The most common among all the AM technologies is fused filament fabrication (FFF), also known as fused deposition modeling (FDM). In FFF, melt thermoplastic polymers are extruded to make the layers for fabricating the design provided in one of the following formats: STL (stereolithography), AMF (additive manufacturing file), Step (standard for exchange of product model data), Voxel, 3MF (3D manufacturing format), or JT (Jupiter tessellation) [45,46,47,48]. The simple extrusion process that can be applied to a large variety of materials makes FFF an affordable technology for research institutes, industries and domestic users.
Despite the technical simplicity, geometric accuracy, ability to build complex shapes with no waste of material and commercial success [49], the FFF structure is composed of voids that contribute to the vulnerability of the product to lack mechanical properties [50]. In the recent growing market, structural integrity is represented by numerous characteristics like strength, fatigue resistance, resistance to aging, resistance to chemical and moisture erosion, etc. Major research in FFF encompasses numerous facets that aim to improve strength (tensile, compressive, and flexural), ductility, and modulus (elastic and flexural) [50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. Since the invention of FFF/FDM in the 20th century, researchers have adopted different ways to improve the strength of parts. However, for a long time, FFF research remained limited to the process parameters/variables (feed rate, speed, layer thickness, etc.) and single materials [57]. In this regard, a recent review by Cuan-Urquizo et al. [58] presents a comprehensive overview of the effect of process parameters on the mechanical properties of FFF parts.
It has been observed that the advancements in the form of customized physical setups, ambient temperature control, and different forms of new materials (composites and blends) have become the main research topics to enhance strength in the last decade or so. Therefore, the strength of printed parts is not only a result of process parameters but is also affected by the material construct (not just the material strength), in addition to process specific strategies and factors. In Figure 1, the vertices of the equilateral triangle identify the three most important factors: (1) process variables, (2) physical setup, and (3) ambient temperature control. The triangle is also divided into three equal sections, each one showing material construct that is related to the vertices on the line touching the particular section. The factors on the vertices for the section of the triangle and the circle together impact the strength of the printed parts. For example, for a single material, process variables and ambient temperature are governing factors to achieve high strength. Similarly, for blends the governing factors are process variables and physical setup.
It is important to mention that there are other types of in-process and post-printing processes performed on the FFF materials. For example, humidity exposure (water absorption) [73,74], chemical treatment (acetone, ethyl acetate, tetrahydrofuran, dichloromethane, chloroform) [75,76,77,78], plasma treatment and epoxy infiltration [79], aluminium coating, metal coating [80,81], physical vapor deposition (PVD) [82], etc. However, apart from humidity [74], these processing techniques are mostly applied for decreasing the surface roughness or to achieve higher dimensional accuracy. Moreover, the before-mentioned post processing techniques are not intended for enhanced tensile strength and ductility. For example, the humidity decreases the strength instead of increasing it. On the contrary, thermal processing (pre-printing, in-process, and post-printing) can result in significant enhancement in tensile strength and ductility [83,84].
This review is focused on the combined effect of materials and process factors on the optimal strength of printed parts. The materials are categorized into three groups: single materials, reinforced composites, and blends. A comprehensive review of each category is provided by dividing the main material category into subcategories in a hierarchical manner (see Figure 2). The approach taken for grouping (subcategorization) is based on the way they are presented in the literature, e.g., commercial and non-commercial materials, partial or fully biodegradable, or continuous and discontinuous materials, etc. Since all the material groups differ from each other, the subcategorization is not the same for each material. For example, single materials are subcategorized into commercial and non-commercial categories. On the other hand, blends are presented as multi-layered subcategories to capture the correct terminology and relevance in the context of FFF.

2. FFF Materials

Various materials are researched in FFF, however, not all materials are researched for tensile strength and ductility (Table 1).
For example, the materials shown in Table 1 have not been specifically investigated for the tensile strength or ductility, e.g., the porous ceramic materials are mostly investigated in terms of compression strength [95,103]. The focus of this review is limited to the materials that are analyzed in terms of tensile strength and elastic modulus. FFF materials are found in three main categories (Figure 2), i.e., single materials, reinforced composites, and blends.

2.1. Single Materials

Single materials are highly significant for FFF as they are commonly available for domestic users. Specifically, the entry level printers (Tiertime [83], Makerbot, Reprap [65], etc.) come with single material filament spools. The single materials presented in the literature include either commercial 3D printing filaments [104] or research-based filaments prepared from polymers by extrusion or injection molding [105]. However, it is noticed that the commercial filaments are used in the majority of research as shown in Figure 3. The reason for this can be the excessive processing requirements and chemistry involved in the filament-making process. Another reason for less research on laboratory-prepared filaments (non-commercial) can be the nature of research that aims for quality of parts only through parametric optimization instead of improvements in the printing materials.
Various single materials have been researched since the invention of FFF as shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. Significant enhancements have been made in mechanical properties like tensile strength, ductility, and elastic modulus of these materials, specifically in the last couple of years. The enhancements in properties of single materials have been achieved through advancements made in physical setups, optimal process parameters, or controlled environmental conditions. Figure 3 includes the materials that show prominent tensile strength. However, there are other FFF single materials in the literature like high impact polystyrene (HIPS), polycaprolactone (PCL) [92,106], polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [107], and Polyurethane (TPU) [92], that have been mostly reported for medical applications and exhibit low tensile strength [92]. This section highlights the tensile capability of various potential FFF single materials along with the special measures (e.g., Orientation in Figure 4) taken to achieve enhanced mechanical properties.
Polylactic acid (PLA) is a renewable, low cost, low melting temperature, and commonly available FFF polymer. It is a biodegradable polymer made by lactic acid or dimers of D-lactides or L-lactides produced by fermentation of starch obtained from natural sources such as plants. It inherits a problem of low crystallization even with the optimal contents of D-lactide (0.5% to 12%) that deprives PLA of achieving good mechanical properties. Various techniques including the addition of additives and post-process thermal treatments have been employed to improve the mechanical properties. The tensile strength gained from PLA structures ranges from 15.5 MPa to 89.1 MPa [41,64,72,108,109,110,111,112]. The highest value of 89.1 MPa, reported in the literature, was achieved with a commercial filament on a small open source 3D printer through an optimal combination of feed rate, layer thickness, and build orientation (Figure 3 and Table 2). This research employed an optimal method of load application in the direction of tool path as shown in Figure 4. The reported reasons for fracture are the inter-layer fusion and trans-layer failure that brought significant difference in strength with the change in build orientation. Inter layer fusion is the fusion bond of lower layer with extruded one and the trans-layer fusion bond is the fusion between beads (roads) of the same layer. In upright (vertical) samples, the breakage of the inter-layer fusion bond occurred due to the applied load parallel to the deposited layer. The deposited layer withstood the whole force instead of individual beads leading to low strength and hence the failure occurred between layers (interlayer). On the contrary, the load applied perpendicular to the deposited layer, in flat and on-edge samples, making the beads bear the applied load, resulted in high strength [62].
Another research reports optimal values of strain rate (2.5 × 10−4 s−1) and raster angle (45°) to achieve 61.4 MPa of tensile strength [113]. PLA is also reported with in-process [83] and post-printing (annealing) thermal treatments. However, it is noted that the annealing does not result in any improvement in tensile properties [113,114]. The in-process thermal treatment reports enhancement in either tensile strength or ductility based on the direction of the heat gradient [83]. However, as shown in Figure 5a, the chemical degradation of PLA has not been reported. Another important aspect researched for PLA is the resistance to humidity. There is a limited literature on behavior of FFF-printed PLA against humidity that reports chain scission (or material separation) at localized areas exposed to moisture (Figure 5b). The increase in percentage humidity causes the tensile load to decrease significantly [73]. The brief aforementioned literature concludes that the optimal process parameters are more in trend to gain high strength for PLA as compared to the controlled environmental conditions or precise physical setups as shown in Table 2. However, the significant degradation of mechanical properties point towards the importance of considering humidity in future PLA 3D printing.
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is the only ternary polymer in FFF. It is the most common elastomeric semi-crystalline polymer used for FFF that is considered one of the large-scale materials due to the introduction of entry level printers for domestic users. The tensile strength obtained from commercial ABS filaments ranges from 26 MPa to 38 MPa [7,42,115,116,117,118,119]. The highest strength (38 MPa) is reported for a commercial variant of ABS (ABSplus) for flat build orientation [120]. Multi-purpose injection molding grades of ABS (MG47 and MG94) are also used to extrude out filaments for FFF. A tensile strength of 34 MPa for high molecular weight MG47 at high feed rate (60 mm/s) has been achieved [7].
The effect of molecular weight is observable in SEM structure as illustrated in Figure 6 that shows high deformation for high molecular weight grade resulting in more fusion area among beads compared to less deformation for low molecular weight grade that causes less fusion area. Therefore, the research reveals the effectiveness of molecular weight for ABS [7]. Moreover, there is a recent research on acetone treatment of ABS in between layers during 3D printing that reports minor improvement in properties [44]. The above-mentioned literature also elaborates on the ability of ABS to generate desired results at an uncontrolled environment as presented in Table 2.
Polyetherether ketone (PEEK) has recently been reported as a potential research material [56,117,121]. However, it is the most difficult material to 3D print among all FFF materials [122]. The main reason for this is the highest melt temperature (>350 °C) among all FFF polymers that makes its processability extremely difficult. Another problem is the narrow optimal temperature range for successful printing (360–400 °C) [56,121,123]. FFF printing of PEEK has been performed on three kinds of custom-made physical setups: (1) syringe-based [121], (2) extrusion-based [124], and (3) filament-based [125]. Among these setups, screw-based extrusion achieves the highest tensile strength (≈100 MPa) [117], while the filament-based setups show the least strength (40 MPa) [122]. The syringe-based setup is conducive to only low molecular weights and it is reported to achieve incomplete printing [121]. Unlike other FFF materials, research on PEEK utilizes a common grade (Victrex 450G) with high molecular weight [52,117,124] that provides superior strength and elastic modulus with 45°/−45° raster orientation [117].
Polypropylene (PP) is the only polyolefin in FFF materials in a short list of known FFF materials. It suffers excessive warpage and shrinkage (Figure 7) that produce dimensional instabilities making its printing a challenging job [1,54,127,128,129]. To overcome the printability problems associated with warpage and shrinkage as shown in Figure 7b, different techniques have been employed. For example, retrofitting PP sheet on a non-heated bed, managing the overlapping area between beads through calculating the shrinkage of each layer [54], addition of fibers [1,54] and alcohol treated PP plate scrubbed with steel brush [1] are among the recently reported techniques. The commercial filament of PP is not available and, therefore, researchers use conventional polymer grades like extrusion molding grades. One of the rare works on PP used high feed rate, low printing (plotting) speed along with over-filled infill rasters on contour paths (Figure 7a) extruded through a custom designed extrusion head. The setup helped to achieve 36 MPa at 0° raster angle with constant layer thickness and 100% infill [1]. The literature doesn’t provide any information regarding 3D printing of PP in controlled environments (thermal or vacuum) or in high precision commercial printers, which leaves a research gap to further explore.
Polycarbonate (PC) is another FFF thermoplastic that has been reported to possess better mechanical properties compared to ABS. The major part of the research performed on PC is on the analysis of tensile properties [130], flexural properties [131], creep [132], and roughness [133] through modifications in process parameters like build orientation, layer thickness, raster angle, number of contours, air gap, etc. [130,131,132,133,134]. The literature predominantly utilizes similar commercial FFF setups (Fortus MC400 and MC360) that fabricate in a heated environment [130,131,132,133], except for one reference that reports both pre-conditioning (ASTM D618) and in-process thermal treatment of PC (vender not provided) [135]. The tensile strength in the literature for PC ranges from as low as 18 MPa [135] to as high as 68 MPa [133]. The recent inclination of research combines the aforementioned process parameters with cyclic or fatigue analysis in heated and non-heated environments [131,132]. It is worth exploring to analyze the effects on mechanical properties of neat (virgin) PC as it is still to be explored. The research will help to explore the real potential of neat polymer.
Nylon is the first semi crystalline polymer in polyamides that is available at commercial scale for FFF. The preference of this material is justified by its good flexibility, least water absorption (<1.5%), good resistance to chemicals, good mechanical properties (Figure 8) and high fatigue resistance.
Various commercialized printer makers have utilized Nylon to make their mark in the global market like Markforged [137]. Nylon12 by Stratasys Inc. has experimented with different layer thicknesses, types of nozzles, and build orientations. The on-edge orientation provides the highest strength of ~55 MPa followed by flat orientation with a close difference in tensile strength [68]. Post-treatment of Nylon doesn’t provide significant differences in tensile strength [54]. A recent research reports the addition of polyolefin elastomer grafted maleic anhydride (POE-g-MAH) to overcome the warpage [138]. During comparative analysis of stress-strain curves of FFF-based nylon, a wide range of strain hardening is found in literature as shown in Figure 8 [136]. Therefore, one of the future prospects of motivating the researchers regarding 3D printing of nylon is the enhancement and utilization of large strain hardening in potential applications.
In conclusion regarding single FFF polymers, PEEK is the only polymer that has been reported to have all three kinds of modifications, i.e., parametric, physical setup, and heated environment. Non-commercial PEEK holds the highest tensile strength followed by commercial PLA as shown in Figure 3 and Table 2. Parametric modifications are preferred for commercial PLA and Nylon to extract the superior properties as shown in Table 2. However, Nylon also reports both parametric and physical setup-based modifications to derive better results. PP also shows successful printing with both parametric and physical setup-based modifications. Variants of commercial ABS in a heated environment provide better properties as compared to non-commercial grades with optimal process parameters.
As a whole, the commercial polymers are explored more in terms of elastic modulus as compared to FFF single polymers made from injection or extrusion grade polymers (Figure 3). Therefore, it indicates a need to research the elastic properties of FFF parts printed by polymer filaments made of injection or extrusion grade. Furthermore, the effect of moisture, thermal and soil degradation on chemical structures of biodegradable materials (PLA, PCL) has not been properly investigated. This highlights the need for thorough chemical analysis of biodegradable FFF materials through Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermosgravimetry analysis (TGA), etc.

2.2. Composites

The contribution of reinforced composite materials is the most significant among all FFF materials as it enables printing of functional parts with highest mechanical strength (Figure 9 and Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). The fiber reinforcement of different forms (continuous or discontinuous) and sizes improves the mechanical [139,140,141,142,143,144], thermal, and conductive properties [145,146,147]. Apart from strength, the reinforcements are added to overcome the non-printability regarding high co-efficient of linear thermal expansion [1,54]. The reinforced composites in FFF are made of either natural reinforcements (like fibers of palm, jute, hemp) or synthetic reinforcements (like carbon, glass, Kevlar, metal), as shown in Figure 2. The synthetic reinforcements are further classified into continuous and discontinuous reinforcements. Discontinuous synthetic reinforcements include fibers (short, micro, and nano), multiwalled nanotubes (MWNT), and powders. This section describes the significant research associated with continuous and discontinuous reinforced FFF polymers.

2.2.1. Continuous Fiber Reinforced FFF Materials

Continuous fiber reinforced polymers are directly fed into the FFF setup to achieve impregnation with polymer matrix. The accumulative strength of the composite is based on the strength and adhesion of both fiber and polymer matrix. To achieve the adhesion between fibers and polymer matrix, two kinds of physical setups are used in research. The pertinent setups are categorized with respect to the number of nozzles in this review, i.e., one nozzle for simultaneous impregnation (conventional FFF method) [148,149], and two nozzles for separate fiber and polymer matrix feeding [59,150,151,152] as shown in Figure 10.
One-nozzle physical setups include four kinds of approaches for fiber impregnation as reported in the literature: (1) chemically treating the fibers before impregnation in synchronized fiber and polymer filament feeding [153], (2) heating the fiber to fuse fiber surface with polymer matrix in synchronized fiber and polymer filament feeding [154], (3) heating the polymer to create a melt pool to pass fiber through it in a non-synchronized fiber and polymer filament feeding [148,149], and (4) direct impregnation without any treatment or heating in synchronized fiber and polymer filament [61]. Each of these approaches achieves specific properties of tensile strength, flexural strength and ductility. Considering the highest tensile strengths (792.8 MPa [148] and 479 MPa [149]), the prominent approach is the impregnation of carbon fibers and glass fibers in epoxy melt and PLA melt pool inside the nozzle during non-synchronized feeding, respectively [148,149]. An additional three approaches, described below, further highlight different research gains in terms of understanding the nature of FFF composites.
For example, heated synthetic carbon fibers achieve high diffusion of fibers into PLA matrix that is complemented by high tow strength of carbon fibers to provide >220 MPa tensile strength. The research also reports natural jute fibers with PLA matrix that results in high ductility instead of tensile strength, as compared to carbon fibers’ reinforced parts. Therefore, the brittle carbon fibers provide high strength and natural fibers exhibiting low brittleness attain higher ductility [154]. The non-treated carbon fibers with PLA matrix depicted the highest flexural strength of 335 MPa.
However, the tensile properties behave not been investigated for non-treated fibers through a single nozzle [61]. On the contrary, the treatment of continuous carbon fibers with methylene dichloride solution before printing through a single nozzle with PLA matrix provides tensile strength of 91 MPa and flexural strength of 156 MPa. Though the polymer matrix was reported to distribute unevenly around continuous fiber (Figure 11), the flattening of extrudate by nozzle through extrusion pressure and surface treatment are presented as the reasons to enhance interfacial strength shared between fiber and polymer matrix [153].
The main emphasis of the research reporting two nozzles is on the build strategy (Figure 12) that is comprised of a few important variables: (1) number of fiber layers, (2) placement of fiber layers in composite, and (3) raster angle of fiber lay-up and polymer matrix. The continuous uninterrupted stacking of a high number of fiber layers along with linear (isotropic) fiber and polymer raster orientation result in high mechanical strength [59,150,151,156].

2.2.2. Discontinuous Fiber Reinforced FFF Materials

The discontinuous reinforced composites are the most researched materials in reinforced FFF polymers as presented in Figure 13 and Table 4 and Table 5. It is noticed in this review that the type of discontinuous fibers (synthetic or natural) also brings significant effects on the properties of fiber-reinforced composites as shown in Figure 13. Furthermore, the functional characteristics of discontinuous reinforced composites are dependent on polymer matrix, adhesion between fibers and polymer matrix [53,55,129,161,162,163,175,176,177,178,179], fiber length distribution (FDL), orientation of fibers in matrix [53,158,180,181,182], packing densities [180], etc. Recent literature elaborates the difficulties associated with discontinuous fibers in the material processing stage that cause breakage of relatively long fibers during shear mixing in extrusion compounding and then 3D printing [183,184,185,186,187]. In this regard, the preliminary research focus is to compensate the uncontrollable breakage of long fibers through orienting the fibers in a dense FFF structure. The proper distribution (Figure 14a,b) and orientation (Figure 14c) attribute good tensile strength of about 70 MPa among discontinuous fibers reinforced composites [188].
The strategy of orienting the long fibers (12mm) with the help of high shear force during the FFF process results in the highest mechanical strength of 93.22 MPa for Big Area Additive Manufacturing (BAAM) that uses polypropylene sulphone (PPS) reinforced with carbon fibers [189]. The concentration of literature before 2018 is notable for the uniform dispersion to achieve homogenization of discontinuous entities (fibers, nano-tubes, powder) in the polymer matrix. On the contrary, recent developments have focused on the introduction of compatibilization of fiber surfaces with polymer as shown in Figure 14. Two recent publications regarding discontinuous fiber reinforced FFF composites report different methods of achieving compatibilization. One uses compatibilizer (styrene acrylonitrile glycidyl methacrylate, SAG) during ABS blending with short carbon fibers in a twin screw extruder (Figure 14d) [162], and the other treats ZnO powder with an ABS:acteone solution to form a surface layer of ABS for compatibilizing with ABS matrix [161].
Considerable efforts have been made to enhance the mechanical properties of natural fiber reinforced polymers (Table 5). However, in natural fiber reinforced polymers, the investigation of optimal printing process parameters is not the prime consideration as observed for single FFF materials. In fact, parameters such as nozzle temperature, layer thickness, infill percentage, bed temperature, and feed rate are mostly adopted from appropriate references (Table 5). Instead of process parameters, the preference is found for fiber concentration to study swelling, apparent draw ratio of filament during the filament making process, post-printing deflection, hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties, biocompatibility and biodegradability testing. Furthermore, this review enlists various methodologies that are used to develop natural fiber-reinforced composites (Figure 2). For example: (1) an old conventional method of using commercial (patent) reinforced filament [165], (2) blending non-processed reinforcements with neat polymers [166,190], (3) blending chemically processed reinforcements with neat polymers [167], (4) blending chemically processed fibers with laboratory prepared graft co-polymers [4], and (5) blending modified reinforcements with modifiers [164]. Each of these methodologies is discussed in further detail below.
Commercial wood-fill filament, made of recycled wood and binary polymer matrix of PLA and poly hydroxyalkanoate (PHA), is used to print the parts with a strength of 31 MPa. The high mechanical tensile strength is noted for samples printed at 0° orientation followed by compression with heating plates compared to simple 3D printed samples. The reason for enhancement in properties is the higher overlapping between beads at appropriate printing width that causes the reduction of porosities [165].
A recent novel research provides a new direction of in-laboratory designed graft polymer matrix and chemically processed natural fibers that show high compatibility during blending. The maleic anhydride grafting on polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and treatment of natural palm fibers with silane coupling agent and acetone provides (Figure 15a) better mechanical properties for graft matrix. In this research, solid-state carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance (CNMR) was used for the first time for FFF materials to justify the presence of grafting and good bonding between treated palm fibers (TPF) and maleic anhydride grafted PHA [4].
Another study presents the effects of different modifiers (EPDM-g-MAH, MDI, POE-g-MAH) on wood flour with thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) as shown in Figure 15b. Though the reported tensile strength (~16 MPa) is not appreciable, this research strengthens the concept of using appropriate functionalized graft polymers that have an affinity towards particular natural fibers [164].
A unique study that developed their own kind of natural fiber reinforced FFF composites reports a hand-layup of chemically processed fibers (silk and sheep wool) in neat PLA matrix. The hand-layup of fibers is performed during the programmed stay time between neat printed layers. The maximum tensile strength of 23.66 MPa is recorded for a silk fiber-reinforced FFF composite [167].
A recent significant development for discontinuous natural reinforced FFF composite is the utilization of the characteristic weakness of natural fibers, i.e., hydrophilicity. High moisture absorption ability of natural fibers is a major technical obstacle that obscures the FFF parts to provide good resistance to moisture [191,192]. In contrast, the high moisture absorption capability makes the natural hygromorphic fibers to act like self-shaped wood [193,194,195], when incorporated as reinforcements in polymer matrix, making them suitable for 4D printing [196,197,198]. This development has broadened the applicable area of natural reinforced FFF composites.
Overall, reinforced composite materials possess the highest potential in terms of strength. However, it is noted that the research foci vary due to change in the type of the reinforced composites. For example, research on discontinuous reinforced composites concentrates on the uniform dispersion [188] and surface compatibility [162] of the reinforcements, and research on the continuous reinforced composites concentrates on the surface impregnation with resin [148,153,154]. Generally, process variables, physical setup modifications, and chemical processing play significant role in dispersion, compatibilization, or surface impregnation. The literature is scarce on printing in heated environments. Therefore, printing in the heated environments along with the enhanced chemical processing can be a potential area of discovery for future research. The rationale behind this is based on the significant improvements in single materials due to printing in the controlled ambient environment [83]. Furthermore, the stability of composites made with natural fibers and biodegradable materials is yet to be explored in terms of stability against moisture, thermal and soil degradation.

2.3. Blends

Blending different polymers is an innovative concept, but very little research efforts have focused on this aspect of FFF (refer to Figure 16). Most FFF blends are listed in Table 6. The FFF blend materials are mostly made by either melt blending or reactive extrusion in a twin-screw extruder in the presence of additives like initiators, compatibilizers [7,171,173,199], molecular chain extenders [200], and plasticizers [116]. The majority of research on FFF-based blend materials reports the use of patent (commercial) graft [7] or non-graft [116] compatibilizers from different companies. One of the reasons for moving on to blends is the vulnerability retained by FFF structures due to their anisotropy. Substantial, but still insufficient, efforts are made to overcome the anisotropy through optimal combinations of parameters like layer thickness, air gaps, infill percentages, feed rate and printing speeds and raster angles [201,202], that cause large differences in tensile strength, particularly with Z-build orientation (vertical) [70,177,201,203,204,205,206,207,208,209].
The only reported strategy to overcome anisotropy is to develop new material systems by blending of printable materials with non-printable materials [116]. As mentioned earlier, a small amount of the research performed is associated with blends compared to single and composite materials. However, the significance of the limited research in blends overshadows their fewer numbers in terms of diversified functionalities such as enhancing inter/intra layer cross-linking, altering failure modes, improved biodegradable life, and an increase in ductility with reasonable strength.
In this review, the FFF blends are categorized into three classifications as shown in Figure 2: (1) partial biodegradable blends, (2) non-biodegradable blends, and (3) biodegradable blends.
A recent publication regarding partial biodegradable blends is of PLA with radiation sensitizer (triallyl isocyanurate, TAIC) in the presence of organic solvent (dichloromethane). The polymer system, after being exposed to gamma rays, provides 49.9 MPa for 0° raster orientation. The results of PLA blend are preferable to control ABS (UTS = 31.1 MPa) due to the improved adhesion achieved through post-printing cross-linking between intercalated layers. The cross linking also helps to reduce the anisotropy in the FFF structure [70]. In a recent study [171], PLA has been blended with polyamide 11 in the presence of a novel compatibilizer known as Joncryl, which is a modified compatibilizer made of acrylic copolymer with epoxy functions. The results of this study showed the highest tensile strength (58.80 MPa) for 2% Joncryl among all FFF blends reported so far.
Significant work regarding non-biodegradable blends reports two novel polymer blends of ABS with: (1) styrene ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS) and (2) ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and styrene ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS:UHMWPE) [116,210]. Better mechanical strength (25.51 MPa) and ductility compared to pure ABS is obtained by binary polymer system (ABS:SEBS), even with poor interfacial adhesion that depicts the failure mode of a brittle nature in the corresponding research. However, the ternary polymer system (ABS:SEBS:UHMWPE) shows better layer bonding but with lower strength. The interfacial layer bonding is interpreted with complex viscosity measured by dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) that reveals lower values for ternary blends than for control ABS. The low complex viscosity of ternary blends proves a high propensity to flow under shear that causes the extruded beads to spread on previous layers and hence reducing the anisotropy by filling the voids or air gaps [116]. The poor interfacial adhesion as reported in ABS:SEBS has been recently improved by the use of low molecular weight surface segregation additives (LMW-SuSAs) in a series of studies [211,212,213]. The most recent among those studies reports ABS with in-laboratory prepared SAN (styrene acrylonitrile), which results in better tensile strength (≈36 MPa) as compared to neat ABS [213].
Biodegradable blends are also rare, similar to the other two types. One such type of blend is the polylactic acid grafted maleic anhydride (PLA-g-MA) with chitosan (CS), the second richest natural polymer. The better compatibilization of CS with PLA-g-MA compared to pure PLA (Figure 17a,b) strengthens the importance of polymer blend systems for the future. The research derived UTS of ~55 MPa for PLA-g-MA with 20% CS by weight as compared to 25 MPa of PLA-CS as shown in Figure 17c [173]. Another recent research reports the bimodal blend of high molecular weight PLA with an in-laboratory prepared low molecular weight PLA. The low molecular weight PLA acts as surface segregation additives that diffuse on the surface during the FFF process due to the long molecular chain [211].
As a summary of the literature regarding FFF materials, it is observed that the research on development of new materials depends upon the type of applications. A common research solution reported in the literature is the modification of existing polymers to achieve desired properties instead of making new monomers. The preliminary goal in modified FFF materials is the ability to print. This material development strategy leads existing research to have more composition by weight percent of existing printable materials (ABS, PLA, PP, Nylon) with low composition of non-printable materials (UHMWPE, SEBS-g-MAH, CS, triallylisocyanurate). Thus, the newly developed polymer blends have inherited functional groups from existing printable materials. Furthermore, existing materials like PEEK, ABS, PP, and Nylon are hard to print as they shrink and do not stick to the printing bed due to curl distortion. This requires some additional measures to make printability possible, including, heated environment, glued printing bed (surface), or incorporation of fibers. On the contrary as a key observation, PLA is the only material that does not provide any problem regarding printability in any form (single, composite, blend).
The simple analysis of chemical structural formulas shows two kinds of observable signs: (1) number of carbons in a monomer, and (2) number and type of functional groups. As shown in Figure 18, PLA has the simplest monomer with three carbons and one carboxylic functional group, Nylon has a long monomer with 11 carbons and two functional groups, PEEK has a long monomer with three aromatic rings (18 carbons) along with the carbonyl group, ABS is a ternary polymer with multi-functional groups including an aromatic group, polypropylene has the simplest monomer but with one of the longest chain configurations. The discussion leads to an understanding that polymers with a greater number of carbons, multi-functional groups, and complex groups (like aromatic) in a monomer are hard to print. However, polymers (like PLA) with a smaller number of carbon atoms in a monomer and one functional group are more suited to FFF printing. Therefore, there is a visible research gap for developing new, dedicated FFF polymers with short and single functional group-based monomers instead of blending printable with non-printable polymers.

3. Summary and Conclusions

Additive manufacturing is well-known for layer-by-layer manufacturing of complex parts at high precision. FFF/FDM is one of the oldest and the most widely used AM technology. Various aspects of FFF structures have been investigated in the literature, the majority of which have the prime consideration to achieve optimal or high strength (tensile, compressive, flexural) by either developing new materials or optimizing process factors or through a combination of both. This review presented the three process factors (process parameters, physical setup modifications, ambient temperature) and types of materials developed with time that are simultaneously employed to achieve improvement in tensile strength.
A brief summary of the key findings in this review is as follows (Figure 19):
  • The basic three types of materials, i.e., single, composites and blends, are analyzed in terms of modifications in process parameters, physical setups and environmental conditions. Furthermore, the above-mentioned three basic types are classified into the sub-categories to explain the modifications in materials that present their true capability.
  • Single materials are categorized into commercial and non-commercial. Commercial materials are researched more than non-commercial materials. However, non-commercial materials have shown more potential to reach high tensile strength. For example, injection molding grade PEEK has the highest strength of 110 MPa as compared to 89.1 MPa for commercial PLA. Most research on single materials has shown a lack of physical modification of the printing system or temperature control. The research mostly comprises process variables’ optimization. The combination of physical setup modification and ambient temperature still has research potential for Nylon and ULTEM. Furthermore, biodegradable materials such as polycaprolactone (PCL), are not properly investigated for tensile properties as the literature generally reports the compression and flexural properties of PCL in FFF based medical applications.
  • Composites are put into two main categories, continuous and discontinuous. Both of which are found in the form of natural and synthetic reinforcements. Discontinuous materials are researched more than continuous. The review provides further segregation of continuous synthetic reinforced composites, and synthetic and natural discontinuous composites with respect to their physical modification and chemical processing. Continuous materials are prominent with the highest strength achieved till now among all FFF/FDM materials. Furthermore, composites are mostly investigated with optimization with process variables and physical setup modifications. Therefore, the effect of ambient temperature is still not fully explored.
  • Blends are segregated into three types: biodegradable, non-biodegradable, and partial biodegradable. However, blends are the least researched type of materials in FFF. The highest strength of 58.5MPa has been shown by the partial biodegradable blend. Like composites, blends are not researched in an ambient environment with temperature control. Therefore, this provides a novel area of research to combine this with the other aspects of blends.
  • The review highlights the importance of developing novel polymers with less carbon atoms and functional groups instead of blending the printable contemporary materials with the non-printable materials. Furthermore, the review highlights numerous novel research areas regarding three types of materials (single, composites, and blends) as given in Table 7.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H. and K.M.A.; methodology, M.H. and K.M.A.; investigation, M.H. and K.M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H. and K.M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.H., J.P., R.A., and K.M.A; visualization, M.H., J.P., R.A., and K.M.A; supervision, J.P., R.A., and K.M.A.; project administration, J.P., R.A., and K.M.A.; funding acquisition, R.A.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) New Zealand for the Food Industry Enabling Technologies (FIET) program. The APC was funded by the School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Carneiro, O.; Silva, A.; Gomes, R. Fused deposition modeling with polypropylene. Mater. Des. 2015, 83, 768–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, J.; Xie, H.; Weng, Z.; Senthil, T.; Wu, L. A novel approach to improve mechanical properties of parts fabricated by fused deposition modeling. Mater. Des. 2016, 105, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Thomas, D.B.; Hiscox, J.D.; Dixon, B.J.; Potgieter, J. 3D scanning and printing skeletal tissues for anatomy education. J. Anat. 2016, 229, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wu, C.-S.; Liao, H.-T.; Cai, Y.-X. Characterisation, biodegradability and application of palm fibre-reinforced polyhydroxyalkanoate composites. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2017, 140, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gardner, J.M.; Hunt, K.A.; Ebel, A.B.; Rose, E.S.; Zylich, S.C.; Jensen, B.D.; Wise, K.E.; Siochi, E.J.; Sauti, G. Machines as Craftsmen: Localized Parameter Setting Optimization for Fused Filament Fabrication 3D Printing. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2019, 4, 1800653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hsiao, W.-K.; Lorber, B.; Reitsamer, H.; Khinast, J. 3D printing of oral drugs: A new reality or hype? J. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2018, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Siqueiros, J.G.; Schnittker, K.; Roberson, D.A. ABS-maleated SEBS blend as a 3D printable material. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2016, 11, 123–131. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lipson, H.; Kurman, M. Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hudson, S.E. Printing teddy bears: A technique for 3D printing of soft interactive objects. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April–1 May 2014; pp. 459–468. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ready, S.; Endicott, F.; Whiting, G.L.; Ng, T.A.; Chow, E.M.; Lu, J. 3D printed electronics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies, Seattle, WA, USA, 29 September–3 October 2013; pp. 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhang, Q.; Li, C. The roles of traditional Chinese medicine: Shen-fu injection on the postresuscitation care bundle. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2013, 2013, 319092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Garcia, C.; Rumpf, R.; Tsang, H.; Barton, J. Effects of extreme surface roughness on 3D printed horn antenna. Electron. Lett. 2013, 49, 734–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Berman, B. 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Bus. Horiz. 2012, 55, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ahn, S.-H.; Lee, K.-T.; Kim, H.-J.; Wu, R.; Kim, J.-S.; Song, S.-H. Smart soft composite: An integrated 3D soft morphing structure using bend-twist coupling of anisotropic materials. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2012, 13, 631–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahmed, N.A.; Page, J. Manufacture of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for advanced project design using 3D printing technology. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 397, 970–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Richardson, M.; Haylock, B. Designer/maker: The rise of additive manufacturing, domestic-scale production and the possible implications for the automotive industry. Comput.-Aided Des. Appl. PACE 2012, 2, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hajializadeh, F.; Ince, A. Finite element–based numerical modeling framework for additive manufacturing process. Mater. Des. Process. Commun. 2019, 1, e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Murphy, S.V.; Atala, A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Seliktar, D.; Dikovsky, D.; Napadensky, E. Bioprinting and tissue engineering: Recent advances and future perspectives. Isr. J. Chem. 2013, 53, 795–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xu, T.; Zhao, W.; Zhu, J.M.; Albanna, M.Z.; Yoo, J.J.; Atala, A. Complex heterogeneous tissue constructs containing multiple cell types prepared by inkjet printing technology. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paulsen, S.; Miller, J. Tissue vascularization through 3D printing: Will technology bring us flow? Dev. Dyn. 2015, 244, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stansbury, J.W.; Idacavage, M.J. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schmelzeisen, D.; Koch, H.; Pastore, C.; Gries, T. 4D Textiles: Hybrid Textile Structures that Can Change Structural Form with Time by 3D Printing. In Narrow and Smart Textiles; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 189–201. [Google Scholar]
  24. Melnikova, R.; Ehrmann, A.; Finsterbusch, K. 3D printing of textile-based structures by Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) with different polymer materials. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2014; Volume 62, p. 012018. [Google Scholar]
  25. Grimmelsmann, N.; Kreuziger, M.; Korger, M.; Meissner, H.; Ehrmann, A. Adhesion of 3D printed material on textile substrates. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bos, F.; Wolfs, R.; Ahmed, Z.; Salet, T. Additive manufacturing of concrete in construction: Potentials and challenges of 3D concrete printing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2016, 11, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry. Autom. Constr. 2016, 68, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Hager, I.; Golonka, A.; Putanowicz, R. 3D printing of buildings and building components as the future of sustainable construction? Procedia Eng. 2016, 151, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Perkins, I.; Skitmore, M. Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry: A review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2015, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Diegel, O.; Xu, W.; Potgieter, J. A case study of rapid prototype as design in educational engineering projects. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2006, 22, 350. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wong, K.V.; Hernandez, A. A review of additive manufacturing. ISRN Mech. Eng. 2012, 2012, 208760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Campbell, T.A.; Ivanova, O.S. 3D printing of multifunctional nanocomposites. Nano Today 2013, 8, 119–120. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Olakanmi, E.O. Selective laser sintering/melting (SLS/SLM) of pure Al, Al-Mg, and Al-Si powders: Effect of processing conditions and powder properties. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2013, 213, 1387–1405. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bose, S.; Vahabzadeh, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Mater. Today 2013, 16, 496–504. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Utela, B.; Storti, D.; Anderson, R.; Ganter, M. A review of process development steps for new material systems in three dimensional printing (3DP). J. Manuf. Process. 2008, 10, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McCullough, E.J.; Yadavalli, V.K. Surface modification of fused deposition modeling ABS to enable rapid prototyping of biomedical microdevices. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2013, 213, 947–954. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Diegel, O.; Withell, A.; de Beer, D.; Potgieter, J.; Noble, F.K. Low-Cost 3D Printing of Controlled Porosity Ceramic Parts. IJAT 2012, 6, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pereira, T.M.; Potgieter, J.; Kennedy, J. Development of Quality Management Strategies for 3D Printing Testing Methods—A Review. In Proceedings of the 2017 4th Asia-Pacific World Congress on Computer Science and Engineering (APWC on CSE), Nadi, Fiji, 11–13 December 2017; pp. 224–231. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pereira, T.; Potgieter, J.; Kennedy, J.V. A fundamental study of 3D printing testing methods for the development of new quality management strategies. In Proceedings of the 2017 24th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP), Auckland, New Zealand, 21–23 November 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  40. Potgieter, J.; Diegel, O.; Noble, F.K.; Pike, M. Additive Manufacturing in the Context of Hybrid Flexible Manufacturing Systems. IJAT 2012, 6, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Whyman, S.; Arif, K.M.; Potgieter, J. Design and development of an extrusion system for 3D printing biopolymer pellets. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 96, 3417–3428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ferreira, A.; Arif, K.M.; Dirven, S.; Potgieter, J. Retrofitment, open-sourcing, and characterisation of a legacy fused deposition modelling system. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 90, 3357–3367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mearns, C.; Potgieter, J.; Dirven, S.; Le Guen, M.J. Experimental analysis of the effectiveness of current modelling methods for SLS parameter determination. In Proceedings of the 2017 24th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP), Auckland, New Zealand, 21–23 November 2017; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wjesundera, P.; Schutte, J.; Potgieter, J. The effects of acetone vapour inter-layer processing on fused deposition modelling 3D printed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. In Proceedings of the 2017 24th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP), Auckland, New Zealand, 21–23 November 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  45. Khoo, Z.X.; Teoh, J.E.M.; Liu, Y.; Chua, C.K.; Yang, S.; An, J.; Leong, K.F.; Yeong, W.Y. 3D printing of smart materials: A review on recent progresses in 4D printing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2015, 10, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Campbell, I.; Bourell, D.; Gibson, I. Additive manufacturing: Rapid prototyping comes of age. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2012, 18, 255–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Umaras, E.; Tsuzuki, M.S.G. Additive Manufacturing—Considerations on Geometric Accuracy and Factors of Influence. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 14940–14945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Loh, G.H.; Pei, E.; Harrison, D.; Monzón, M.D. An overview of functionally graded additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 23, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Harris, M.; Potgieter, J.; Arif, K.; Archer, R. Large scale 3D printing: Feasibility of novel extrusion based process and requisite materials. In Proceedings of the 2017 24th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP), Auckland, New Zealand, 21–23 November 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  50. Brenken, B.; Barocio, E.; Favaloro, A.; Kunc, V.; Pipes, R.B. Fused filament fabrication of fiber-reinforced polymers: A review. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 21, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, L.; Gramlich, W.M.; Gardner, D.J. Improving the impact strength of Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) in fused layer modeling (FLM). Polymer 2017, 114, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arif, M.; Kumar, S.; Varadarajan, K.; Cantwell, W. Performance of biocompatible PEEK processed by fused deposition additive manufacturing. Mater. Des. 2018, 146, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liao, G.; Li, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Xu, D.; Zhu, D.; Jiang, S.; Guo, J.; Chen, X.; Xu, G.; Zhu, Y. Properties of oriented carbon fiber/polyamide 12 composite parts fabricated by fused deposition modeling. Mater. Des. 2018, 139, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stoof, D.; Pickering, K. Sustainable composite fused deposition modelling filament using recycled pre-consumer polypropylene. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 135, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, W.; Cotton, C.; Sun, J.; Heider, D.; Gu, B.; Sun, B.; Chou, T.W. Interfacial bonding strength of short carbon fiber/acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene composites fabricated by fused deposition modeling. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 137, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Geng, P.; Zhao, J.; Wu, W.; Ye, W.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Zhang, S. Effects of extrusion speed and printing speed on the 3D printing stability of extruded PEEK filament. J. Manuf. Process. 2019, 37, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Decuir, F.; Phelan, K.; Hollins, B.C. Mechanical Strength of 3-D Printed Filaments. In Proceedings of the 32nd Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference (SBEC), Shreveport, LA, USA, 11–13 March 2016; pp. 47–48. [Google Scholar]
  58. Cuan-Urquizo, E.; Barocio, E.; Tejada-Ortigoza, V.; Pipes, R.B.; Rodriguez, C.A.; Roman-Flores, A. Characterization of the Mechanical Properties of FFF Structures and Materials: A Review on the Experimental, Computational and Theoretical Approaches. Materials 2019, 12, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Van Der Klift, F.; Koga, Y.; Todoroki, A.; Ueda, M.; Hirano, Y.; Matsuzaki, R. 3D printing of continuous carbon fibre reinforced thermo-plastic (CFRTP) tensile test specimens. Open J. Compos. Mater. 2015, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rankouhi, B.; Javadpour, S.; Delfanian, F.; Letcher, T. Failure Analysis and Mechanical Characterization of 3D Printed ABS With Respect to Layer Thickness and Orientation. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 2016, 16, 467–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tian, X.; Liu, T.; Yang, C.; Wang, Q.; Li, D. Interface and performance of 3D printed continuous carbon fiber reinforced PLA composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2016, 88, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chacón, J.; Caminero, M.; García-Plaza, E.; Núñez, P. Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition modelling: Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection. Mater. Des. 2017, 124, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Domingo-Espin, M.; Puigoriol-Forcada, J.M.; Garcia-Granada, A.-A.; Lluma, J.; Borros, S.; Reyes, G. Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused deposition modeling Polycarbonate parts. Mater. Des. 2015, 83, 670–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sood, A.K.; Ohdar, R.K.; Mahapatra, S.S. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tymrak, B.; Kreiger, M.; Pearce, J.M. Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental conditions. Mater. Des. 2014, 58, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Casavola, C.; Cazzato, A.; Moramarco, V.; Pappalettere, C. Orthotropic mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate theory. Mater. Des. 2016, 90, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Anitha, R.; Arunachalam, S.; Radhakrishnan, P. Critical parameters influencing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2001, 118, 385–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Knoop, F.; Schoeppner, V. Mechanical and thermal properties of FDM parts manufactured with polyamide 12. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium—An Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 10–12 August 2015; Volume 10, pp. 935–948. [Google Scholar]
  69. Dul, S.; Fambri, L.; Pegoretti, A. Fused deposition modelling with ABS–graphene nanocomposites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2016, 85, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shaffer, S.; Yang, K.; Vargas, J.; Di Prima, M.A.; Voit, W. On reducing anisotropy in 3D printed polymers via ionizing radiation. Polymer 2014, 55, 5969–5979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Christiyan, K.J.; Chandrasekhar, U.; Venkateswarlu, K. A study on the influence of process parameters on the Mechanical Properties of 3D printed ABS composite. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2016; Volume 114, p. 012109. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ning, F.; Cong, W.; Hu, Y.; Wang, H. Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic composites using fused deposition modeling: Effects of process parameters on tensile properties. J. Compos. Mater. 2017, 51, 451–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ayrilmis, N.; Kariz, M.; Kwon, J.H.; Kitek Kuzman, M. Effect of printing layer thickness on water absorption and mechanical properties of 3D-printed wood/PLA composite materials. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Valerga, A.P.; Batista, M.; Salguero, J.; Girot, F. Influence of PLA Filament Conditions on Characteristics of FDM Parts. Materials 2018, 11, 1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Du Preez, S.; Johnson, A.; LeBouf, R.F.; Linde, S.J.L.; Stefaniak, A.B.; Du Plessis, J. Exposures during industrial 3-D printing and post-processing tasks. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 865–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chohan, J.S.; Singh, R. Pre and post processing techniques to improve surface characteristics of FDM parts: A state of art review and future applications. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2017, 23, 495–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lalehpour, A.; Janeteas, C.; Barari, A. Surface roughness of FDM parts after post-processing with acetone vapor bath smoothing process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 95, 1505–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Valerga, A.P.; Batista, M.; Fernandez-Vidal, S.R.; Gamez, A.J. Impact of Chemical Post-Processing in Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) on Polylactic Acid (PLA) Surface Quality and Structure. Polymers 2019, 11, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zaldivar, R.J.; McLouth, T.D.; Patel, D.N.; Severino, J.V.; Kim, H.I. Strengthening of plasma treated 3D printed ABS through epoxy infiltration. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2017, 2, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Equbal, A.; Sood, A.K. Metallization on FDM Parts Using the Chemical Deposition Technique. Coatings 2014, 4, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Martin, J.H.; Ashby, D.S.; Schaedler, T.A. Thin-walled high temperature alloy structures fabricated from additively manufactured polymer templates. Mater. Des. 2017, 120, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lavecchia, F.; Percoco, G.; Pei, E.; Galantucci, L.M. Computer Numerical Controlled Grinding and Physical Vapor Deposition for Fused Deposition Modelled Workpieces. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 2018, 9037490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Harris, M.; Potgieter, J.; Archer, R.; Arif, K.M. In-process thermal treatment of polylactic acid in fused deposition modelling. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2019, 34, 701–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yang, C.; Tian, X.; Li, D.; Cao, Y.; Zhao, F.; Shi, C. Influence of thermal processing conditions in 3D printing on the crystallinity and mechanical properties of PEEK material. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2017, 248, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Singh, S.; Ramakrishna, S.; Singh, R. Material issues in additive manufacturing: A review. J. Manuf. Process. 2017, 25, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Woodfield, T.B.; Malda, J.; De Wijn, J.; Peters, F.; Riesle, J.; van Blitterswijk, C.A. Design of porous scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering using a three-dimensional fiber-deposition technique. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 4149–4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Zeng, W.; Lin, F.; Shi, T.; Zhang, R.; Nian, Y.; Ruan, J.; Zhou, T. Fused deposition modelling of an auricle framework for microtia reconstruction based on CT images. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2008, 14, 280–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zeltinger, J.; Sherwood, J.K.; Graham, D.A.; Müeller, R.; Griffith, L.G. Effect of pore size and void fraction on cellular adhesion, proliferation, and matrix deposition. Tissue Eng. 2001, 7, 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lam, C.X.F.; Mo, X.; Teoh, S.-H.; Hutmacher, D. Scaffold development using 3D printing with a starch-based polymer. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2002, 20, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ang, T.H.; Sultana, F.S.A.; Hutmacher, D.W.; Wong, Y.S.; Fuh, J.Y.H.; Mo, X.M.; Loh, H.T.; Burdet, E.; Teoh, S.H. Fabrication of 3D chitosan–hydroxyapatite scaffolds using a robotic dispensing system. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2002, 20, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tanase, C.E.; Spiridon, I. PLA/chitosan/keratin composites for biomedical applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2014, 40, 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Przybytek, A.; Gubańska, I.; Kucińska-Lipka, J.; Janik, H. Polyurethanes as a Potential Medical-Grade Filament for Use in Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printers—A Brief Review. Fibres Text. Eastern Eur. 2018, 6, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tsai, K.J.; Dixon, S.; Hale, L.R.; Darbyshire, A.; Martin, D.; de Mel, A. Biomimetic heterogenous elastic tissue development. NPJ Regen. Med. 2017, 2, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Grida, I.; Evans, J.R. Extrusion freeforming of ceramics through fine nozzles. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2003, 23, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zocca, A.; Colombo, P.; Gomes, C.M.; Günster, J. Additive manufacturing of ceramics: Issues, potentialities, and opportunities. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2015, 98, 1983–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Singh Boparai, K.; Singh, R.; Singh, H. Experimental investigations for development of Nylon6-Al-Al2O3 alternative FDM filament. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2016, 22, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Singh, R.; Singh, S.; Fraternali, F. Development of in-house composite wire based feed stock filaments of fused deposition modelling for wear-resistant materials and structures. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 98, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Khatri, B.; Lappe, K.; Noetzel, D.; Pursche, K.; Hanemann, T. A 3D-printable polymer-metal soft-magnetic functional composite—Development and characterization. Materials 2018, 11, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hohimer, C.J.; Petrossian, G.; Ameli, A.; Mo, C.; Pötschke, P. Electrical conductivity and piezoresistive response of 3D printed thermoplastic polyurethane/multiwalled carbon nanotube composites. In Behavior and Mechanics of Multifunctional Materials and Composites XII; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2018; Volume 10596, p. 105960J. [Google Scholar]
  100. Klippstein, H.; Diaz De Cerio Sanchez, A.; Hassanin, H.; Zweiri, Y.; Seneviratne, L. Fused deposition modeling for unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs): A review. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2018, 20, 1700552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. RUMLEY-OUELLETTE, B.J.; WAHRY, J.H.; BAKER, A.M.; BERNARDIN, J.D.; MARCHI, A.N.; TODD, M.D. In situ printing of conductive poly lactic acid strain sensors embedded into additively manufactured parts. Struct. Health Monit. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Pranzo, D.; Larizza, P.; Filippini, D.; Percoco, G. Extrusion-based 3D printing of microfluidic devices for chemical and biomedical applications: A topical review. Micromachines 2018, 9, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lu, Z.; Cao, J.; Song, Z.; Li, D.; Lu, B. Research progress of ceramic matrix composite parts based on additive manufacturing technology. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tanikella, N.G.; Wittbrodt, B.; Pearce, J.M. Tensile strength of commercial polymer materials for fused filament fabrication 3D printing. Addit. Manuf. 2017, 15, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Kumar, N.; Jain, P.K.; Tandon, P.; Pandey, P.M. The effect of process parameters on tensile behavior of 3D printed flexible parts of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). J. Manuf. Process. 2018, 35, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kempin, W.; Franz, C.; Koster, L.C.; Schneider, F.; Bogdahn, M.; Weitschies, W.; Seidlitz, A. Assessment of different polymers and drug loads for fused deposition modeling of drug loaded implants. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2017, 115, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Goyanes, A.; Kobayashi, M.; Martinez-Pacheco, R.; Gaisford, S.; Basit, A.W. Fused-filament 3D printing of drug products: Microstructure analysis and drug release characteristics of PVA-based caplets. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 514, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Wu, W.; Geng, P.; Li, G.; Zhao, D.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, J. Influence of Layer Thickness and Raster Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a Comparative Mechanical Study between PEEK and ABS. Materials 2015, 8, 5834–5846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Kotlinski, J. Mechanical properties of commercial rapid prototyping materials. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2014, 20, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yang, C.; Tian, X.; Liu, T.; Cao, Y.; Li, D. 3D printing for continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites: Mechanism and performance. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2017, 23, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Eujin Pei, D.; Lanzotti, A.; Grasso, M.; Staiano, G.; Martorelli, M. The impact of process parameters on mechanical properties of parts fabricated in PLA with an open-source 3-D printer. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2015, 21, 604–617. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  112. Vaezi, M.; Chua, C.K. Effects of layer thickness and binder saturation level parameters on 3D printing process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 53, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Song, Y.; Li, Y.; Song, W.; Yee, K.; Lee, K.-Y.; Tagarielli, V. Measurements of the mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed PLA. Mater. Des. 2017, 123, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wach, R.A.; Wolszczak, P.; Adamus-Wlodarczyk, A. Enhancement of Mechanical Properties of FDM-PLA Parts via Thermal Annealing. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2018, 303, 1800169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rezayat, H.; Zhou, W.; Siriruk, A.; Penumadu, D.; Babu, S. Structure–mechanical property relationship in fused deposition modelling. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2015, 31, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Torrado, A.R.; Shemelya, C.M.; English, J.D.; Lin, Y.; Wicker, R.B.; Roberson, D.A. Characterizing the effect of additives to ABS on the mechanical property anisotropy of specimens fabricated by material extrusion 3D printing. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 6, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Rinaldi, M.; Ghidini, T.; Cecchini, F.; Brandao, A.; Nanni, F. Additive layer manufacturing of poly (ether ether ketone) via FDM. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 145, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Huang, B.; Meng, S.; He, H.; Jia, Y.; Xu, Y.; Huang, H. Study of processing parameters in fused deposition modeling based on mechanical properties of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene filament. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2019, 59, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Conway, K.M.; Pataky, G.J. Crazing in additively manufactured acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2019, 211, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kucewicz, M.; Baranowski, P.; Małachowski, J.; Popławski, A.; Płatek, P. Modelling, and characterization of 3D printed cellular structures. Mater. Des. 2018, 142, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Vaezi, M.; Yang, S. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2015, 10, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Deng, X.; Zeng, Z.; Peng, B.; Yan, S.; Ke, W. Mechanical properties optimization of poly-ether-ether-ketone via fused deposition modeling. Materials 2018, 11, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. TERMOPLASTI, Z.; MODELIRANJE, N. Processing poly (ether etherketone) on a 3D printer for thermoplastic modelling. Mater. Tehnol. 2013, 47, 715–721. [Google Scholar]
  124. Tseng, J.W.; Liu, C.Y.; Yen, Y.K.; Belkner, J.; Bremicker, T.; Liu, B.H.; Sun, T.J.; Wang, A.B. Screw extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK. Mater. Des. 2018, 140, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Zhao, F.; Li, D.; Jin, Z. Preliminary Investigation of Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone Based on Fused Deposition Modeling for Medical Applications. Materials 2018, 11, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Barber, P.; Atkinson, J. The use of tensile tests to determine the optimum conditions for butt fusion welding certain grades of polyethylene, polybutene-1 and polypropylene pipes. J. Mater. Sci. 1974, 9, 1456–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wang, L.; Gardner, D.J.; Bousfield, D.W. Cellulose nanofibril-reinforced polypropylene composites for material extrusion: Rheological properties. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2018, 58, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, L.; Gardner, D.J. Effect of fused layer modeling (FLM) processing parameters on impact strength of cellular polypropylene. Polymer 2017, 113, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Sodeifian, G.; Ghaseminejad, S.; Yousefi, A.A. Preparation of Polypropylene/Short Glass Fiber Composite as Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Filament. Results Phys. 2019, 12, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Gajdoš, I.; Slota, J.; Spišák, E.; Jachowicz, T.; Tor-Swiatek, A. Structure and tensile properties evaluation of samples produced by Fused Deposition Modeling. Open Eng. 2016, 6, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Puigoriol-Forcada, J.M.; Alsina, A.; Salazar-Martín, A.G.; Gomez-Gras, G.; Pérez, M.A. Flexural Fatigue Properties of Polycarbonate Fused-deposition Modelling Specimens. Mater. Des. 2018, 155, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Salazar-Martin, A.G.; Perez, M.A.; García-Granada, A.-A.; Reyes, G.; Puigoriol-Forcada, J.M. A study of creep in polycarbonate fused deposition modelling parts. Mater. Des. 2018, 141, 414–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Boschetto, A.; Giordano, V.; Veniali, F. 3D roughness profile model in fused deposition modelling. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2013, 19, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Smith, W.C.; Dean, R.W. Structural characteristics of fused deposition modeling polycarbonate material. Polym. Test. 2013, 32, 1306–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Hill, N.; Haghi, M. Deposition direction-dependent failure criteria for fused deposition modeling polycarbonate. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2014, 20, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Aslanzadeh, S.; Saghlatoon, H.; Honari, M.M.; Mirzavand, R.; Montemagno, C.; Mousavi, P. Investigation on electrical and mechanical properties of 3D printed nylon 6 for RF/microwave electronics applications. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 21, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. SAYILAN, A.; KAYNAN, Ö.; YUSİFOVA, A.; CEBECİ, H.; YENİGÜN, E.Ö. Kompozitler için 3D Yazıcı İle Yüksek Performanslı Tekstil Yapılarının Tasarlanması ve Geliştirilmesi. Tekstil ve Mühendis 2017, 24, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Geng, Y.; He, H.; Jia, Y.; Peng, X.; Li, Y. Enhanced through-plane thermal conductivity of polyamide 6 composites with vertical alignment of boron nitride achieved by fused deposition modeling. Polym. Compos. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Karsli, N.G.; Aytac, A. Tensile and thermomechanical properties of short carbon fiber reinforced polyamide 6 composites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 51, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Botelho, E.C.; Figiel, Ł.; Rezende, M.C.; Lauke, B. Mechanical behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polyamide composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2003, 63, 1843–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Tezcan, J.; Ozcan, S.; Gurung, B.; Filip, P. Measurement and analytical validation of interfacial bond strength of PAN-fiber-reinforced carbon matrix composites. J. Mater. Sci. 2008, 43, 1612–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Vautard, F.; Ozcan, S.; Poland, L.; Nardin, M.; Meyer, H. Influence of thermal history on the mechanical properties of carbon fiber–acrylate composites cured by electron beam and thermal processes. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2013, 45, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Bettini, P.; Alitta, G.; Sala, G.; Di Landro, L. Fused deposition technique for continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2017, 26, 843–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kvalsvig, A.; Yuan, X.; Potgieter, J.; Cao, P. Analysing the tensile properties of 3D printed fibre reinforced thermoplastic composite specimens. In Proceedings of the 2017 24th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice (M2VIP), Auckland, New Zealand, 21–23 November 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  145. Li, J.; Cai, C.L. The carbon fiber surface treatment and addition of PA6 on tensile properties of ABS composites. Curr. Appl. Phys. 2011, 11, 50–54. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Rezaei, F.; Yunus, R.; Ibrahim, N.A. Effect of fiber length on thermomechanical properties of short carbon fiber reinforced polypropylene composites. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 260–263. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Li, J. Interfacial studies on the O3 modified carbon fiber-reinforced polyamide 6 composites. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2008, 255, 2822–2824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Hao, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Chen, H.; Fang, D. Preparation and characterization of 3D printed continuous carbon fiber reinforced thermosetting composites. Polym. Test. 2018, 65, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Akhoundi, B.; Behravesh, A.H.; Bagheri Saed, A. Improving mechanical properties of continuous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites produced by FDM 3D printer. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Agarwal, K.; Kuchipudi, S.K.; Girard, B.; Houser, M. Mechanical properties of fiber reinforced polymer composites: A comparative study of conventional and additive manufacturing methods. J. Compos. Mater. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Dong, G.; Tang, Y.; Li, D.; Zhao, Y.F. Mechanical Properties of Continuous Kevlar Fiber Reinforced Composites Fabricated by Fused Deposition Modeling Process. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 26, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Caminero, M.; Chacón, J.; García-Moreno, I.; Reverte, J. Interlaminar bonding performance of 3D printed continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modelling. Polym. Test. 2018, 68, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Li, N.Y.; Li, Y.G.; Liu, S.T. Rapid prototyping of continuous carbon fiber reinforced polylactic acid composites by 3D printing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2016, 238, 218–225. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Matsuzaki, R.; Ueda, M.; Namiki, M.; Jeong, T.K.; Asahara, H.; Horiguchi, K.; Nakamura, T.; Todoroki, A.; Hirano, Y. Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber composites by in-nozzle impregnation. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Love, L.J.; Kunc, V.; Rios, O.; Duty, C.E.; Elliott, A.M.; Post, B.K.; Smith, R.J.; Blue, C.A. The importance of carbon fiber to polymer additive manufacturing. J. Mater. Res. 2014, 29, 1893–1898. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Oztan, C.; Karkkainen, R.; Fittipaldi, M.; Nygren, G.; Roberson, L.; Lane, M.; Celik, E. Microstructure and mechanical properties of three dimensional-printed continuous fiber composites. J. Compos. Mater. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Drummer, D.; Cifuentes-Cuéllar, S.; Rietzel, D. Suitability of PLA/TCP for fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2012, 18, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. DeNardo, N.M. Additive Manufacturing of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites. Master’s Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  159. Weng, Z.X.; Wang, J.L.; Senthil, T.; Wu, L.X. Mechanical and thermal properties of ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling 3D printing. Mater. Des. 2016, 102, 276–283. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Tarrés, Q.; Melbø, J.K.; Delgado-Aguilar, M.; Espinach, F.; Mutjé, P.; Chinga-Carrasco, G. Bio-polyethylene reinforced with thermomechanical pulp fibers: Mechanical and micromechanical characterization and its application in 3D-printing by fused deposition modelling. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 153, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Aw, Y.Y.; Yeoh, C.K.; Idris, M.A.; Teh, P.L.; Hamzah, K.A.; Sazali, S.A. Effect of Printing Parameters on Tensile, Dynamic Mechanical, and Thermoelectric Properties of FDM 3D Printed CABS/ZnO Composites. Materials 2018, 11, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Zhu, J.; Zhang, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, B. Compatibilizer Assistant SCF/ABS Composites with Improved Mechanical Properties Prepared by Fused Deposition Modeling. Polym.-Plast. Technol. Eng. 2018, 57, 1576–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Papon, E.A.; Haque, A. Tensile properties, void contents, dispersion and fracture behaviour of 3D printed carbon nanofiber reinforced composites. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2018, 37, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Bi, H.; Ren, Z.; Guo, R.; Xu, M.; Song, Y. Fabrication of flexible wood flour/thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer composites using fused deposition molding. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 122, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Le Duigou, A.; Castro, M.; Bevan, R.; Martin, N. 3D printing of wood fibre biocomposites: From mechanical to actuation functionality. Mater. Des. 2016, 96, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Osman, M.A.; Atia, M.R. Investigation of ABS-rice straw composite feedstock filament for FDM. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 1067–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Mangat, A.S.; Singh, S.; Gupta, M.; Sharma, R. Experimental investigations on natural fiber embedded additive manufacturing-based biodegradable structures for biomedical applications. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 1221–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Milosevic, M.; Stoof, D.; Pickering, K. Characterizing the mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling natural fiber recycled polypropylene composites. J. Compos. Sci. 2017, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Liu, H.; He, H.; Peng, X.; Huang, B.; Li, J. Three-dimensional printing of poly(lactic acid) bio-based composites with sugarcane bagasse fiber: Effect of printing orientation on tensile performance. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2019, 30, 910–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Banerjee, S.S.; Burbine, S.; Kodihalli Shivaprakash, N.; Mead, J. 3D-Printable PP/SEBS Thermoplastic Elastomeric Blends: Preparation and Properties. Polymers 2019, 11, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Rasselet, D.; Caro-Bretelle, A.-S.; Taguet, A.; Lopez-Cuesta, J.-M. Reactive Compatibilization of PLA/PA11 Blends and Their Application in Additive Manufacturing. Materials 2019, 12, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Kuo, C.C.; Liu, L.C.; Teng, W.F.; Chang, H.Y.; Chien, F.M.; Liao, S.J.; Kuo, W.F.; Chen, C.M. Preparation of starch/acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers (ABS) biomass alloys and their feasible evaluation for 3D printing applications. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 86, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Wu, C.S. Modulation, functionality, and cytocompatibility of three-dimensional printing materials made from chitosan-based polysaccharide composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. C-Mater. 2016, 69, 27–36. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Ou-Yang, Q.; Guo, B.; Xu, J. Preparation and Characterization of Poly (butylene succinate)/Polylactide Blends for Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 14309–14317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Zhong, W.; Li, F.; Zhang, Z.; Song, L.; Li, Z. Short fiber reinforced composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2001, 301, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Gray, R.W., IV; Baird, D.G.; Bøhn, J.H. Thermoplastic composites reinforced with long fiber thermotropic liquid crystalline polymers for fused deposition modeling. Polym. Compos. 1998, 19, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Es-Said, O.S.; Foyos, J.; Noorani, R.; Mendelson, M.; Marloth, R.; Pregger, B.A. Effect of layer orientation on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2000, 15, 107–122. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Shofner, M.; Lozano, K.; Rodríguez-Macías, F.; Barrera, E. Nanofiber-reinforced polymers prepared by fused deposition modeling. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003, 89, 3081–3090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Brooks, B.J.; Arif, K.M.; Dirven, S.; Potgieter, J. Robot-assisted 3D printing of biopolymer thin shells. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 89, 957–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Fu, S.Y.; Lauke, B.; Mäder, E.; Yue, C.Y.; Hu, X. Tensile properties of short-glass-fiber- and short-carbon-fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2000, 31, 1117–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Fu, S.Y.; Lauke, B. Effects of fiber length and fiber orientation distributions on the tensile strength of short-fiber-reinforced polymers. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1996, 56, 1179–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Hine, P.J.; Davidson, N.; Duckett, R.A.; Ward, I.M. Measuring the fibre orientation and modelling the elastic properties of injection-moulded long-glass-fibre-reinforced nylon. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1995, 53, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Biolzi, L.; Castellani, L.; Pitacco, I. On the mechanical response of short fibre reinforced polymer composites. J. Mater. Sci. 1994, 29, 2507–2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Fu, S.Y.; Lauke, B. Analysis of mechanical properties of injection molded short glass fibre (SGF)/calcite/ABS composites. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 1997, 13, 389–396. [Google Scholar]
  185. Ho, K.C.; Hwang, J.R.; Doong, J.L. Tensile properties of short glass fibre reinforced polycarbonate. Polym. Polym. Compos. 1996, 4, 563–575. [Google Scholar]
  186. Ramsteiner, F.; Theysohn, R. The influence of fibre diameter on the tensile behaviour of short-glass-fibre reinforced polymers. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1985, 24, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Sato, N.; Kurauchi, T.; Sato, S.; Kamigaito, O. Microfailure behaviour of randomly dispersed short fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites obtained by direct SEM observation. J. Mater. Sci. 1991, 26, 3891–3898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Tekinalp, H.L.; Kunc, V.; Velez-Garcia, G.M.; Duty, C.E.; Love, L.J.; Naskar, A.K.; Blue, C.A.; Ozcan, S. Highly oriented carbon fiber–polymer composites via additive manufacturing. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2014, 105, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Hassen, A.A.; Lindahl, J.; Chen, X.; Post, B.; Love, L.; Kunc, V. Additive manufacturing of composite tooling using high temperature thermoplastic materials. In Proceedings of the SAMPE Conference Proceedings, Long Beach, CA, USA, 23–26 May 2016; pp. 23–26. [Google Scholar]
  190. Singh, R.; Kumar, R.; Ranjan, N. Sustainability of Recycled ABS and PA6 by Banana Fiber Reinforcement: Thermal, Mechanical and Morphological Properties. J. Inst. Eng. (India) Ser. C 2019, 100, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Kabir, M.M.; Wang, H.; Lau, K.T.; Cardona, F. Chemical treatments on plant-based natural fibre reinforced polymer composites: An overview. Compos. Part B Eng. 2012, 43, 2883–2892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Azwa, Z.N.; Yousif, B.F.; Manalo, A.C.; Karunasena, W. A review on the degradability of polymeric composites based on natural fibres. Mater. Des. 2013, 47, 424–442. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Rüggeberg, M.; Burgert, I. Bio-inspired wooden actuators for large scale applications. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Holstov, A.; Bridgens, B.; Farmer, G. Hygromorphic materials for sustainable responsive architecture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 98, 570–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Reichert, S.; Menges, A.; Correa, D. Meteorosensitive architecture: Biomimetic building skins based on materially embedded and hygroscopically enabled responsiveness. Comput.-Aided Des. 2015, 60, 50–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Tibbits, S. The Emergence of “4D Printing”. Available online: http://www.ted.com/talks/skylar_tibbits_the_ emergence_of_4d_printing?language=en (accessed on 25 July 2013).
  197. Raviv, D.; Roskovich, G. An alternative method to teaching design of control systems. In Proceedings of the 12th LACCEI Annual Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology (LACCEI), Guayaquil, Ecuador, 21–24 July 2014; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  198. Qi, G.; Conner, K.D.; Qi, H.J.; Martin, L.D. Active origami by 4D printing. Smart Mater. Struct. 2014, 23, 094007. [Google Scholar]
  199. Wu, J.; Chen, N.; Bai, F.; Wang, Q. Preparation of poly(vinyl alcohol)/poly(lactic acid)/hydroxyapatite bioactive nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling. Polym. Compos. 2018, 39, E508–E518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Haryńska, A.; Kucinska-Lipka, J.; Sulowska, A.; Gubanska, I.; Kostrzewa, M.; Janik, H. Medical-Grade PCL Based Polyurethane System for FDM 3D Printing—Characterization and Fabrication. Materials 2019, 12, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Perez, A.R.T.; Roberson, D.A.; Wicker, R.B. Fracture surface analysis of 3D-printed tensile specimens of novel ABS-based materials. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 2014, 14, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Rodriguez, J.F.; Thomas, J.P.; Renaud, J.E. Design of Fused-Deposition ABS Components for Stiffness and Strength. J. Mech. Des. 2003, 125, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Ahn, S.-H.; Montero, M.; Odell, D.; Roundy, S.; Wright, P.K. Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2002, 8, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Bellini, A.; Güçeri, S. Mechanical characterization of parts fabricated using fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2003, 9, 252–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Vega, V.; Clements, J.; Lam, T.; Abad, A.; Fritz, B.; Ula, N.; Es-Said, O.S. The Effect of Layer Orientation on the Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of a Polymer. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2011, 20, 978–988. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Hague, R.; Mansour, S.; Saleh, N.; Harris, R. Materials analysis of stereolithography resins for use in Rapid Manufacturing. J. Mater. Sci. 2004, 39, 2457–2464. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Bagsik, A.; Schöppner, V.; Klemp, E. FDM part quality manufactured with Ultem* 9085. In Proceedings of the 14th International Scientific Conference on Polymeric Materials, Halle, Germany, 15–17 September 2010; Volume 15, pp. 307–315. [Google Scholar]
  208. Hague, R.; Mansour, S.; Saleh, N. Material and design considerations for rapid manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2004, 42, 4691–4708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Caulfield, B.; McHugh, P.E.; Lohfeld, S. Dependence of mechanical properties of polyamide components on build parameters in the SLS process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2007, 182, 477–488. (In English) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Rocha, C.R.; Perez, A.R.T.; Roberson, D.A.; Shemelya, C.M.; MacDonald, E.; Wicker, R.B. Novel ABS-based binary and ternary polymer blends for material extrusion 3D printing. J. Mater. Res. 2014, 29, 1859–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Levenhagen, N.P.; Dadmun, M.D. Interlayer diffusion of surface segregating additives to improve the isotropy of fused deposition modeling products. Polymer 2018, 152, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Levenhagen, N.P.; Dadmun, M.D. Bimodal molecular weight samples improve the isotropy of 3D printed polymeric samples. Polymer 2017, 122, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Levenhagen, N.P.; Dadmun, M.D. Improving Interlayer Adhesion in 3D Printing with Surface Segregating Additives: Improving the Isotropy of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Parts. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2019, 1, 876–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 12 01664 g001 550
Figure 1. Summary of fused filament fabrication (FFF) materials and corresponding process factors (process variables, physical setup modifications, and controlled ambient temperature) based on the overall understanding of literature [1,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72].
Figure 1. Summary of fused filament fabrication (FFF) materials and corresponding process factors (process variables, physical setup modifications, and controlled ambient temperature) based on the overall understanding of literature [1,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72].
Materials 12 01664 g001
Materials 12 01664 g002 550
Figure 2. Materials for fused filament fabrication.
Figure 2. Materials for fused filament fabrication.
Materials 12 01664 g002
Materials 12 01664 g003 550
Figure 3. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of single materials of fused deposition modeling.
Figure 3. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of single materials of fused deposition modeling.
Materials 12 01664 g003
Materials 12 01664 g004 550
Figure 4. Process parameters: (a) build orientation; and (b) raster orientation. Adapted from [62], with permission from © 2017 Elsevier.
Figure 4. Process parameters: (a) build orientation; and (b) raster orientation. Adapted from [62], with permission from © 2017 Elsevier.
Materials 12 01664 g004
Materials 12 01664 g005 550
Figure 5. Illustration of in-process and post-process processing on printed structure of PLA: (a) in-process thermal treatment at different types of heat gradients; and (b) effect of moisture on localized areas.
Figure 5. Illustration of in-process and post-process processing on printed structure of PLA: (a) in-process thermal treatment at different types of heat gradients; and (b) effect of moisture on localized areas.
Materials 12 01664 g005
Materials 12 01664 g006 550
Figure 6. Illustration of effects of molecular weight on diffusion.
Figure 6. Illustration of effects of molecular weight on diffusion.
Materials 12 01664 g006
Materials 12 01664 g007 550
Figure 7. Illustration of PP 3D printing: (a) over-filled infill with contour overlap, and (b) shrinkage in PP printed samples. Adapted from [1], with permission from © 2015 Elsevier.
Figure 7. Illustration of PP 3D printing: (a) over-filled infill with contour overlap, and (b) shrinkage in PP printed samples. Adapted from [1], with permission from © 2015 Elsevier.
Materials 12 01664 g007
Materials 12 01664 g008 550
Figure 8. Large-strain hardening of five FFF Nylon6 samples with 100% infill density. Adapted from [136], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier.
Figure 8. Large-strain hardening of five FFF Nylon6 samples with 100% infill density. Adapted from [136], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier.
Materials 12 01664 g008
Materials 12 01664 g009 550
Figure 9. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of continuous fiber reinforced materials.
Figure 9. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of continuous fiber reinforced materials.
Materials 12 01664 g009
Materials 12 01664 g010 550
Figure 10. One nozzle and two nozzle illustration: (a) feeding heated fiber [154]; (b) feeding non-treated fiber, adapted from [61], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier; (c) feeding treated fiber with methylene dichloride and PLA pellets, adapted from [153], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier; (d) passing fiber from pool of melt, adapted from [148], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier; and (e) separate feeding of filament and fiber from two separate nozzles, adapted from [152], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier.
Figure 10. One nozzle and two nozzle illustration: (a) feeding heated fiber [154]; (b) feeding non-treated fiber, adapted from [61], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier; (c) feeding treated fiber with methylene dichloride and PLA pellets, adapted from [153], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier; (d) passing fiber from pool of melt, adapted from [148], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier; and (e) separate feeding of filament and fiber from two separate nozzles, adapted from [152], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier.
Materials 12 01664 g010
Materials 12 01664 g011 550
Figure 11. Surface morphology of 3D printed carbon fiber/PLA composite: (a) micrograph of carbon fiber bundle and PLA resin; (b) micrograph of PLA width between carbon fibers; and (c) schematic of the uneven distribution of PLA. Adapted from [153], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier.
Figure 11. Surface morphology of 3D printed carbon fiber/PLA composite: (a) micrograph of carbon fiber bundle and PLA resin; (b) micrograph of PLA width between carbon fibers; and (c) schematic of the uneven distribution of PLA. Adapted from [153], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier.
Materials 12 01664 g011
Materials 12 01664 g012 550
Figure 12. Illustration of two build strategies for FFF with two nozzles setups: (a) number and placement of carbon fibers in polymer matrix [59]; and (b) illustration of fiber fill orientation.
Figure 12. Illustration of two build strategies for FFF with two nozzles setups: (a) number and placement of carbon fibers in polymer matrix [59]; and (b) illustration of fiber fill orientation.
Materials 12 01664 g012
Materials 12 01664 g013 550
Figure 13. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of discontinuous fiber reinforced materials of fused filament fabrication.
Figure 13. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of discontinuous fiber reinforced materials of fused filament fabrication.
Materials 12 01664 g013
Materials 12 01664 g014 550
Figure 14. Development in research of discontinuous fiber reinforced FFF polymers before and from 2018: (a) fiber length distributions in FFF printed specimen; (b) weight average fiber lengths of FFF samples, and (c) dispersion of fibers in specific orientation. Adapted from [188], with permission from © 2014, Elsevier. (d) Illustration of chemical reaction of styrene acrylonitrile glycidyl methacrylate (SAG) on surface of short carbon fibers, adapted from [162], with permission from © Taylor & Francis.
Figure 14. Development in research of discontinuous fiber reinforced FFF polymers before and from 2018: (a) fiber length distributions in FFF printed specimen; (b) weight average fiber lengths of FFF samples, and (c) dispersion of fibers in specific orientation. Adapted from [188], with permission from © 2014, Elsevier. (d) Illustration of chemical reaction of styrene acrylonitrile glycidyl methacrylate (SAG) on surface of short carbon fibers, adapted from [162], with permission from © Taylor & Francis.
Materials 12 01664 g014
Materials 12 01664 g015 550
Figure 15. Two methodologies to develop natural fiber reinforced FFF materials: (a) in-laboratory prepared graft polymer for chemical processed natural palm fibers, adapted from [4], with permission from © 2017 Elsevier; and (b) modification of fibers matrix (TPU/WF) with modifier (EPDM-g-MAH) adapted from [164], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier.
Figure 15. Two methodologies to develop natural fiber reinforced FFF materials: (a) in-laboratory prepared graft polymer for chemical processed natural palm fibers, adapted from [4], with permission from © 2017 Elsevier; and (b) modification of fibers matrix (TPU/WF) with modifier (EPDM-g-MAH) adapted from [164], with permission from © 2018 Elsevier.
Materials 12 01664 g015
Materials 12 01664 g016 550
Figure 16. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of blend materials in fused filament fabrication.
Figure 16. Tensile strength and elastic modulus of blend materials in fused filament fabrication.
Materials 12 01664 g016
Materials 12 01664 g017 550
Figure 17. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images showing the distribution and wetting of CS in (a) PLA/CS (10 wt%); (b) PLA-g-MA/CS (10 wt%) composites; and (c) effect of CS content on the tensile strength at failure for PLA/CS and PLA-g-MA/CS composites. Adapted from [173], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier.
Figure 17. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images showing the distribution and wetting of CS in (a) PLA/CS (10 wt%); (b) PLA-g-MA/CS (10 wt%) composites; and (c) effect of CS content on the tensile strength at failure for PLA/CS and PLA-g-MA/CS composites. Adapted from [173], with permission from © 2016 Elsevier.
Materials 12 01664 g017
Materials 12 01664 g018 550
Figure 18. Chemical formulae of common FFF materials.
Figure 18. Chemical formulae of common FFF materials.
Materials 12 01664 g018
Materials 12 01664 g019 550
Figure 19. Strength range for different FFF materials.
Figure 19. Strength range for different FFF materials.
Materials 12 01664 g019
Table
Table 1. Fused filament fabrication (FFF) materials for different applications that are not generally investigated for tensile properties.
Table 1. Fused filament fabrication (FFF) materials for different applications that are not generally investigated for tensile properties.
DomainApplicationsMaterials
MedicalScaffolds, Organs and TissuesPoly caprolactone (PCL) [85], Poly(Ethylene Glycol) Terephthalate Poly(Butylene Terephthalate)(PEGT/PBT) [86], Chitosan/hydroxyapatite, Polyurethane [87], Poly l-lactide (L-PLA) [88], Corn starch/dextran/gelatin [89], Polylactic acid/Poly caprolactone [85], Chitosan/Hydroxyapatite (HA) [90], Chitosan/PLA/Keratine [91], Polyurethanes (PURs), Diisocyanate/Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) [92], Polyols-polyether/PCL, Chain extender/Butanediol (BDO) [93].
AerospaceCeramic and metal filled partsZirconia/Wax [94], Polypropylene (PP)/Tricalcium phosphate (TCP), Polylactic acid/Hydroxyapatite (HA)/ceramic particles [95], Iron/nylon, Copper/Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Nylon 6/Al-Al2O3 [96,97], PC-ABS/Graphene
ElectricalConducting productsABS/Steel, PLA/Graphene/MWCNT [98], Polyurethane/MWCNT [99]
Unmanned air vehicleAerofoil, framePolyether imide (PEI) or ULTEM, Acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA), Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Carbon fiber reinforced nylon [100].
ElectronicsSensorsPolylactic acid (PLA) [101], ABS, Wax blend, Nylon [83,102]
Table
Table 2. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength of different single materials.
Table 2. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength of different single materials.
MaterialProcess VariablesPhysical SetupEnvironmentTensile Strength
(MPa)
VariablesSet Values of VariablesSignificant Variable
PLA [62]Build orientationFlat, on-edge, upright LayerFlat, 50 mm/s, and 0.06 mmNot specific designedUncontrolled89.1
Layer thickness0.06 mm, 0.12 mm, 0.18 mm, 0.24 mm.
Feed rate20 mm/s, 50 mm/s, 80 mm/s
PLA [113]Strain rate2.5 × 10−4 S−1, 1.25 × 10−4 S−12.5 × 10−4 S−1Not specific designedUncontrolled61.42
Raster angle0°, 45°, 90°45°
Thermal comparison of material in different condition (for crystallinity)As received filament, Extruded filament, Printed, Printed (annealed)No significant difference in % crystallinity
ABS [7]Extrusion melt pump pressure 75 for MG47, 54 for MG94Both gradesNot specific designedUncontrolled34
Two molecular weight grades MG47 for high MW, MG94 for Low MWMG47
PEEK [117]Infill percentage 20, 50, 100Flat and 100% infillNot specific designedUncontrolled≈100
Build orientationFlat, vertical
PEEK [121]Two molecular weight gradesOPTIMA LT3 (low MW),VICTREX 450G (high MW)VICTREX 450G
14%		Two kinds of setup
Syringe based
Filament based 		Heated plate
Lamp heated atmosphere		75.06
Average Porosity % 14%, 31%
Printing speed0 to 120 mm/min
Extrusion speed0 to 120 mm/min
Nozzle diameter 621.052 µm, 512.03 µm, 407.96 µm
PEEK [124]Printing methodsLine printing, Plane printing Plane printingPellet printer,
Glass and steel plate		 98
PEEK [52]Build orientation Flat, vertical, Flat and 0° 82.5
Raster angle0°, 90°
PP [1]Infill percentage20%, 60% and 100%100%
0°
0.2		Custom extrusion head.
Scrubbed glass bed with alcohol treatment [126] 		Uncontrolled36
Orientation45°, 0°, 90°, crossed 45° (±45°) and crossed 0°–90°
Layer thickness0.20 and 0.35
Nylon [68]Build orientationFlat, on-edge, supright (vertical)T16
On-edge 		Nozzle size T12, T16, T20Uncontrolled~55
Table
Table 3. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for continuous fiber reinforced composites.
Table 3. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for continuous fiber reinforced composites.
MaterialsProcess VariablesPhysical SetupEnvironmentTensile Strength (MPa)
VariablesSet Values of VariablesSignificant Variable
CF:ABS [155]Different printers Makerbot replicator, CubeX, Afinia and Solidoodle 3 All printers have significance
Flat samples have maximum UTS		No No 70.69
Build orientationFlat, Vertical
Modified CF:PLA [153]Pre-printing treatment of CFMethylene dichloride solution with 8% PLA particles for CF. Treatment Customized No91
JF: PLA
CF: PLA [154]		Pre-printing heating of continuous CF210 °CCarbon fiber No separate mechanism for pulling CF.
Nichrome wire heater attached with printing head for heating CF.		No220 (CF)
60 (JF)
Fiber types Carbon fiber (CF) and Jute fiber (JF)
Epoxy: CF [148]Epoxy pool impregnation of CFEpoxy pool impregnation Epoxy pool impregnationCustomized setupNo 792.8
Printing schemesLamina, Honey comb, Grid (not for UTS)
Nylon: CF
Nylon: Kevlar [156]		Fiber types Carbon fiber, Kevlar fiber Nylon: CF
0°		No
(Mark One 3D printer)		No 254.8 (CF), 150.2 (Kevlar)
Raster orientation Orientations for Nylon: Kevlar (0°, ±45°), Nylon:CF (0°)
Nylon:CF [59]Fiber build strategy with discontinuity in fiber layup each pathSandwiched Carbon fibers in middle of 10-layer specimen,
i.e., 2 layers, and 6 layers		6 CF layer No
(MarkForged company printer)		No 464.4
PLA:GF [149]Pool of PLA Pool of PLAPool of PLA
49.3
0.3		CustomizedNo479
Fiber composition %49.3,46.3,40.18,35.14,28.78,22.74
Extrusion width (mm)0.22,0.25, 0.35, 0.4,0.5,0.6,0.8
Nylon: GF
Nylon: Kevlar
[150]		Fiber composition %25% and 50%50%
Isotropic
0°		Non-commercial two nozzle printing headNo283.5
Fill type Isotropic and Concentric
Fill type category
1) Isotropic fill type
2) Concentric fill type		0°, 45°, and 90°
4 layers 8 layers, and 12 layers
Table
Table 4. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for discontinuous synthetic reinforced materials.
Table 4. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for discontinuous synthetic reinforced materials.
MaterialsProcess VariablesPhysical SetupEnvironmentTensile Strength (MPa)
VariablesSet Values of VariablesSignificant Variable
PLA: TCP
[157]		Specimen size1:1, 1:21:2
225 C		No 27.5
Printing temperature215 °C, 225 °C, 235 °C
PP:GF
[1]		Infill degree %20%, 60%, 100%Infill 100%
0°
0.35 mm		Customized printerNo39
Raster orientation45°, 0°, 90°, crossed 45° (±45°), 0°–90°
Layer thickness0.2 mm, 0.35 m
ABS: TiO2, ABS: ZnO, ABS: SrTiO3, ABS:AL2O3 [116]Build orientationFlat, VerticalFlat
TiO2		NoNo32.9 (ABS:TiO2)
20.7 (ZnO)
21.6 (ABS:SrTiO3)
28.8 (ABS:AL2O3)
Type of fillersTiO2, No, SrTiO3, AL2O3
CF:PPS [158]Raster orientation0° (longitudinal), 90° (transverse)0°NoNo93.22
ABS: OMMT [159]Laboratory based OMMT (treated) content %1%, 3%, 5%5%NoNo39.48
BioPE: TMP [160]Laboratory prepared thermos- mechanical pulp fibers (TMP) %0%, 10%, 20%, 30%30%NoNo38.72
ABS: ZnO
CABS: ZnO [161]		Type of polymer matrixABS, CABSABS
100 %
Line		Powder ZnO deposition by dispenser during printingNo27.5 (ABS:ZnO)
12 (CABS:ZnO)
Infill density50%, 75%, 100%
Infill patternLine & rectilinear with 45° raster
PPGF: POE-g-MA [129]Layer thickness0.1mm and 0.4 mm0.1 mm
20%		Laboratory made PP tape for heating bedNo34
POE-G-MA contents %10%, 20%, 30%
ABS: SCF: SAG [162]SAG content %0%, 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%5%NoNo73.3
ABS: SCF [55]Type of reinforcementShort carbon fibers (SCF), Carbon nanotubes (CNT)SCF
0°		NoNo39.05
Raster angle45°/-45°, 0° and 90°
PLA: CNF [163]Nozzle geometryCircle, and squareSquare (less voids)
0.5%		NoNo47
CNF contents %0.5%, 0.1%
Nylon12:CF
[53]		CF contents%0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%10%
0°		NoNo93.8
Raster angle0°, 90°
Table
Table 5. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for discontinuous natural fiber reinforced materials.
Table 5. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for discontinuous natural fiber reinforced materials.
MaterialsProcess VariablesPhysical SetupEnvironmentTensile Strength
VariablesSet Values of VariablesSignificant Variable for Highest Strength
ABS:JF [116]Build orientation Flat, VerticalFlat
TiO2		NoNo24.25 (ABS: JF)
Type of fillersJute, TiO2, ZnO, SrTiO3, AL2O3
TPU: Wood flour: MDI [164]Wood flour contents %10%, 20%, 30%, 40% MDINoNo19
Types of modifiersEPDM-g-MAH, POE-g-MAH, chitosan (cs), polyethylene glycol (PEG), diphenyl methyl propane di-isocyanate (MDI)
PHA-g-MAH:PF [4]Treated palm fiber with Silane coupling agent.Treated palm fibers (PF)20%
PHA-g-MAH		NoNo 25
PF composition10%, 20%, 30%, 40%
Type of polymer matrixLaboratory prepared PHA-g-MAH, PHA
PLA: wood fill fine [165]Sample width %100%, 200%, 300%100%
0°		NoNo 31
Raster angle0° and 90° (rectilinear infill)
ABS: Rice straw [166]Number of contours1, 2 2
15%		NoNo28.89
Rice straw content %5%, 10%, 15%
PLA: Silk [167]Types of fibers Sheep and Silk wool (chemically treated)Silk
4
100%
0°/90°		No specific physical change.
Just provided stay time between layers		No24.58 (PLA: Silk)
23.63 (PLA: Sheep wool)
Number of laminates2, 3, 4
Infill density20%, 60%, 100%
Raster angle0°/90°, 45°/135°, 30°/120°
PP: Harakeke
PP:Hemp [168]		Types of fibersHarakeke, hemp 20%
Harakeke		LDPE & PP bed. warpage in glassNo 24 (PP: Harakeke)
16 (PP: Hemp)
Fiber composition10%, 20%, 30%
PLA: Sugarcane bagasse [169]Raster angle0°/0°, 45°/-45°, 0°/90°, 90°/90°45°/45°
(only provided tensile strength at 45°/−45°)
Sugar cane bagasse fibers		No No57
Sugar cane bagasse fiber composition3%, 6%, 9%, 12%, 15%
Raw sugarcane bagasse composition3%, 6%, 9%, 12%, 15%
Table
Table 6. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for blend materials.
Table 6. Process factors for achieving high tensile strength for blend materials.
MaterialsProcess VariablesPhysical SetupEnvironmentTensile Strength (MPa)
VariablesSet Values of VariablesSignificant Variable
PP: SEBS [170]Composition of PP:SEBS20:80, 40:60, 60:407.5 phr carbon blackPP print bedNo18
(7.5 phr)
14
(40PP:60SEBS)
Carbon black in 40PP:60SEBS0-15 parts per hundred rubber (Phr)
Injection molding40PP:60SEBS
PLA:PA11:Joncryl [171]Composition of Joncryl
(modified acrylic copolymer with epoxy functions)		0%, 1%, 2%, 3%80:20:2
(PLA:PA11:Joncryl)
Injection moulding		NoNo58.8
Different processesInjection moulding, FDM
ABS:SEBS [116]Build orientation Flat, VerticalFlat
TiO2
95:5
90:10:10		NoNo25.5
(ABS: SEBS)
23.07
(ABS: UHMWPE: SEBS)
Type of fillersSEBS, UHMWPE: SEBS, Jute, TiO2, ZnO, SrTiO3, AL2O3
CompositionABS: SEBS (95:5, 80:20)
ABS: UHMWPE: SEBS (90:10:10, 75:25:10)
TPS:ABS:SMA: MBS:TiO2:CB [172]Types of polymers
Polymers 		Styrene maleic anhydride (SMA), methyl-
methacrylate butadiene styrene (MBS), TiO2, pigment CB		SMA 30ABS:70%:1SMA:0% TiO2:0%CBNoNo 46.8
CompositionSMA (1%), MBS (1%, 2%), TiO2 (0%, 5%), CB (0%, 5%),
ABS:SEBS-g-MAH [7]Grades of ABS MG47, MG940 (w.r.t molecular weight)MG94
60 mm/s
75%:25%		NoNo25.09
Feed rate30 mm/s and 60 mm/s
Composition of ABS: SEBS-g-MAH75:25, 50:50, 25:75
One additional for MG94 in 10:90
PLA-g-MA: Chitosan [173]Types of polymersPLA, Laboratory prepared PLA-g-MA, PLA-g-MA
20%		No No 57
Chitosan (CS) composition%5%, 10%, 15%, 20%
PLA-PBS [174]PBS content %20%, 40%, 60%, 80%20%NoNo55.6
Table
Table 7. Novel areas of research for different types of FFF materials.
Table 7. Novel areas of research for different types of FFF materials.
MaterialNovel Area/s to Explore
PLAEffects of moisture, thermal and soil degradation on chemical structure and tensile strength
ABS-
NylonLarge-strain behavior to be explored in structural applications
PPEffects of printing in heated environment
PCEffects of post-printing thermal treatment
PEEK-
Composites 1. Printing in heated environment
2. Stability of biodegradable composites against moisture and soil degradation
3. Optimal composite properties considering process (printing) temperature as a variable.
Blends1. Printing in heated environment
2. Stability of blends against post printing thermal degradation
3. Optimal blend properties considering process (printing) temperature as a variable.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Harris, M.; Potgieter, J.; Archer, R.; Arif, K.M. Effect of Material and Process Specific Factors on the Strength of Printed Parts in Fused Filament Fabrication: A Review of Recent Developments. Materials 2019, 12, 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12101664

AMA Style

Harris M, Potgieter J, Archer R, Arif KM. Effect of Material and Process Specific Factors on the Strength of Printed Parts in Fused Filament Fabrication: A Review of Recent Developments. Materials. 2019; 12(10):1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12101664

Chicago/Turabian Style

Harris, Muhammad, Johan Potgieter, Richard Archer, and Khalid Mahmood Arif. 2019. "Effect of Material and Process Specific Factors on the Strength of Printed Parts in Fused Filament Fabrication: A Review of Recent Developments" Materials 12, no. 10: 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12101664

APA Style

Harris, M., Potgieter, J., Archer, R., & Arif, K. M. (2019). Effect of Material and Process Specific Factors on the Strength of Printed Parts in Fused Filament Fabrication: A Review of Recent Developments. Materials, 12(10), 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12101664

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop