Among all the additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, the material extrusion-based AM is the most popular, and widely used for prototyping, rapid tooling, and direct part production in the current scenario. In material extrusion AM (MEAM), a solid form of material is converted to a semi-molten form and extruded out of a nozzle to deposit in a layer-by-layer manner. Nowadays MEAM three-dimensional (3D) printers are very popular among different application sectors. This motivates us to develop various commercial as well as open-source entry-level 3D printers such as the development of filament extruder 3D printers, pellet extruder 3D printer, or a combination of both. However, to develop or operate these printers, preliminary knowledge of various extrusion parameters is required to obtain the desired quality in the fabricated parts. Therefore, an initial attempt has been made to provide information related to various extrusion parameters such as definition, working range, and the effect of these parameters on performance measured. The impact of process parameters on the performance of either filament extrusion AM or pellet/granules extrusion AM has only been investigated in the studies available in the literature. However, this study provides a comprehensive review of the effects of process parameters on performance measurements for both types of extrusion-based AM processes. In this research work, along with a detailed review of previous works, a study of various process parameters, modeling, and methodology has been provided. The statistical modeling approach, histogram normal plots have been provided along with mean, standard deviation, and percentage to decide the optimum process parameters based on data available in the existing literature.
BoseSKeDSahasrabudheH,et al.Additive manufacturing of biomaterials. Prog Mater Sci2018; 93: 45–111.
2.
GolmohammadiAHKhodayganS. A framework for multi-objective optimisation of 3D part-build orientation with a desired angular resolution in additive manufacturing processes. Virtual Phys Prototyp2019; 14: 19–36.
3.
GeblerMSchoot UiterkampAJMVisserC. A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy2014; 74: 158–167.
4.
VyavahareSTeraiyaSPanghalD,et al.Fused deposition modelling: a review. Rapid Prototyp J2020; 26: 176–201.
GordelierTJThiesPRTurnerL,et al.Optimising the FDM additive manufacturing process to achieve maximum tensile strength: a state-of-the-art review. Rapid Prototyp J2019; 25: 953–971.
7.
MostafaeiAElliottAMBarnesJE, et al.Binder jet 3D printing—process parameters, materials, properties, and challenges. Prog Mater Sci2020: 119: 100707.
8.
NgoTDKashaniAImbalzanoG, et al.Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B Eng2018; 143: 172–196.
9.
GuoNLeuMC. Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and research needs. Front Mech Eng2013; 8: 215–243.
10.
StansburyJWIdacavageMJ. 3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dent Mater2016; 32: 54–64.
11.
DawoodAMartiBMSauret-JacksonV,et al.3D printing in dentistry. Br Dent J2015; 219: 521–529.
SamesWJListFAPannalaS, et al.The metallurgy and processing science of metal additive manufacturing. Int Mater Rev2016; 61: 315–360.
14.
MohanNSenthilPVinodhS,et al.A review on composite materials and process parameters optimisation for the fused deposition modelling process. Virtual Phys Prototyp2017; 12: 47–59.
15.
SolomonIJSevvelPGunasekaranJ. A review on the various processing parameters in FDM. Mater Today Proc2021; 37: 509–514.
16.
DelhiN. National Strategy for Ministry of Electronics and Information 2020.
17.
Mercado-ColmeneroJMRubio-ParamioMARubia-GarciaMD, et al.A numerical and experimental study of the compression uniaxial properties of PLA manufactured with FDM technology based on product specifications 2019.
18.
NagarajanVMohantyAKMisraM. Perspective on polylactic acid (PLA) based sustainable materials for durable applications: focus on toughness and heat resistance. ACS Sustain Chem Eng2016; 4: 2899–2916.
19.
RutkowskiJVLevinBC. Acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene copolymers (ABS): pyrolysis and combustion products and their toxicity—a review of the literature. Fire Mater1986; 10: 93–105.
TorradoARShemelyaCMEnglishJD, et al.Characterizing the effect of additives to ABS on the mechanical property anisotropy of specimens fabricated by material extrusion 3D printing. Addit Manuf2015; 6: 16–29.
22.
LeeJ-YAnJChuaCK. Fundamentals and applications of 3D printing for novel materials. Appl Mater Today2017; 7: 120–133.
23.
KannanSRamamoorthyM. Mechanical characterization and experimental modal analysis of 3D printed ABS, PC and PC-ABS materials. Mater Res Express2020; 7: 15341.
24.
TaufikMJainPK. Part surface quality improvement studies in fused deposition modelling process: a review. Aust J Mech Eng2020; 20: 527–551.
25.
GaletaTRaosPStojšićJ,et al.Influence of structure on mechanical properties of 3D printed objects. Procedia Eng2016; 149: 100–104.
26.
WangSDaelemansLD’HoogeDR, et al.Lifting the quality of fused filament fabrication of polylactic acid based composites. Compos Part B Eng2021; 210: 108613.
27.
DebRoyTWeiHLZubackJS, et al.Additive manufacturing of metallic components—process, structure and properties. Prog Mater Sci2018; 92: 112–224.
28.
TaufikMJainPK. A study of build edge profile for prediction of surface roughness in fused deposition modeling. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans ASME2016; 138: 061002.
29.
NorthcuttLAOrskiSVMiglerKB,et al.Effect of processing conditions on crystallization kinetics during materials extrusion additive manufacturing. Polymer (Guildf.)2018; 154: 182–187.
30.
GurralaPKRegallaSP. Part strength evolution with bonding between filaments in fused deposition modelling: this paper studies how coalescence of filaments contributes to the strength of final FDM part. Virtual Phys Prototyp2014; 9: 141–149.
31.
AhnSHMonteroMOdellD, et al.Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J2002; 8: 248–257.
32.
Gonzalez-GutierrezJCanoSSchuschniggS, et al.Additive manufacturing of metallic and ceramic components by the material extrusion of highly-filled polymers: A review and future perspectives. Materials (Basel)2018; 11: 840.
33.
AlsoufiMSElsayedAE. Surface roughness quality and dimensional accuracy—a comprehensive analysis of 100% infill printed parts fabricated by a personal/desktop cost-effective FDM 3D printer. Mater Sci Appl2018; 9: 11–40.
34.
AgarwalaMKJamalabadVRLangranaNA, et al.Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition. Rapid Prototyp J1996; 2: 4–19.
35.
Van WaeleghemTMarchesiniFHCardonL,et al.Melt exit flow modelling and experimental validation for fused filament fabrication: from Newtonian to non-Newtonian effects. J Manuf Process2022; 77: 138–150.
36.
SpoerkMSavandaiahCArbeiterF, et al.Optimization of mechanical properties of glass-spheres-filled polypropylene composites for extrusion-based additive manufacturing. Polym Compos2019; 40: 638–651.
37.
KrishnanandSoniSTaufikM.Design and assembly of fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3D printers. Mater Today Proc2020; 46: 5233–5241.
38.
GleadallAVisscherDYangJ, et al.Review of additive manufactured tissue engineering scaffolds: relationship between geometry and performance. Burn Trauma2018; 6: 1–16.
39.
RealJPBarberisMECamachoNM, et al.Design of novel oral ricobendazole formulation applying melting solidification printing process (MESO-PP): an innovative solvent-free alternative method for 3D printing using a simplified concept and low temperature. Int J Pharm2020; 587: 119653.
40.
SjöholmESandlerN. Additive manufacturing of personalized orodispersible warfarin films. Int J Pharm2019; 564: 117–123.
41.
MusazziUMSelminFOrtenziMA, et al.Personalized orodispersible films by hot melt ram extrusion 3D printing. Int J Pharm2018; 551: 52–59.
42.
OhBCJinGParkC, et al.Preparation and evaluation of identifiable quick response (QR)-coded orodispersible films using 3D printer with directly feeding nozzle. Int J Pharm2020; 584: 119405.
43.
ChoH-WBaekS-HLeeB-J,et al.Orodispersible polymer films with the poorly water-soluble drug, olanzapine: hot-melt pneumatic extrusion for single-process 3D printing. Pharmaceutics2020; 12: 92.
44.
FanousMGoldSMullerS, et al.Simplification of fused deposition modeling 3D-printing paradigm: feasibility of 1-step direct powder printing for immediate release dosage form production. Int J Pharm2020; 578: 119124.
45.
GoyanesAAllahhamNTrenfieldSJ, et al.Direct powder extrusion 3D printing: fabrication of drug products using a novel single-step process. Int J Pharm2019: 567: 118471.
Wesley Machado CunicoMMarcus Gomes da Silva CruzCMachado CunicoM,et al.Development of new rapid prototyping process. Rapid Prototyp J2011; 17: 138–147.
48.
VasudevaraoBNatarajanDPHendersonM. Sensitivity of RP surface finish to process. In Solid freedom fabrication proceedings, August 8-10, 2000, The University of Texas in Austin, Austin, University of Texas, pp. 251–258.
49.
ChengWFuhJYHNeeAYC, et al.Multi-objective optimization of part-building orientation in stereolithography. Rapid Prototyp J1995; 1: 12–23.
50.
McClurkinJERosenDW. Computer-aided build style decision support for stereolithography. Rapid Prototyp J1998; 4: 4–13.
51.
WangPZouBXiaoH. Effects of printing parameters of fused deposition modeling on mechanical properties, surface quality, and microstructure of peek. J Mater Process Tech2019: 271: 62–74.
52.
PandeyPMVenkata ReddyNDhandeSG. Virtual hybrid-FDM system to enhance surface finish. Virtual Phys Prototyp2006; 1: 101–116.
53.
TaufikMJainPK. A study of build edge profile for prediction of surface roughness in fused deposition modeling. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans ASME2016; 138: 061002.
54.
GoranaVKJainVKLalGK. Prediction of surface roughness during abrasive flow machining. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2006; 31: 258–267.
55.
CobbRCReevesPE. Reducing the surface deviation of stereolithography using in-process techniques. Rapid Prototyp J1997; 3: 20–31.
56.
PandeyPMReddyNVDhandeSG. Real time adaptive slicing for fused deposition modelling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2003; 43: 61–71.
ISO 1101:2017(EN), Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—geometrical tolerancing—tolerances of form, orientation, location and run-out, n.d.
60.
SoodAKOhdarRKMahapatraSS. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts. Mater Des2010; 31: 287–295.
61.
AngKCLeongKFChuaCK,et al.Investigation of the mechanical properties and porosity relationships in fused deposition modelling-fabricated porous structures. Rapid Prototyp J2006; 12: 100–105.
62.
DurgunIErtanR. Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of mechanical properties and production cost. Rapid Prototyp J2014; 20: 228–235.
63.
RajpurohitSRDaveHK. Flexural strength of fused filament fabricated (FFF) PLA parts on an open-source 3D printer. Adv Manuf2018; 6: 430–441.
64.
LlumàJGomez-GrasGJerez-MesaR, et al.Comparative study of the flexural properties of ABS, PLA and a PLA–wood composite manufactured through fused filament fabrication. Rapid Prototyp J2020; 27: 81–92.
65.
XinhuaLShengpengLZhouL, et al.An investigation on distortion of PLA thin-plate part in the FDM process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2015; 79: 1117–1126.
66.
AnithaRArunachalamSRadhakrishnanP.Critical parameters influencing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling. J Mater Process Technol2001; 118: 385–388.
67.
SahuRKMahapatraSSSoodAK. A study on dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modeling (FDM) processed parts using fuzzy logic. J Manuf Sci Prod2014; 13: 183–197.
68.
ZhouXHsiehS-JSunY. Experimental and numerical investigation of the thermal behaviour of polylactic acid during the fused deposition process. Virtual Phys Prototyp2017; 12: 221–233.
69.
AfonsoJAAlvesJLCaldasG, et al.Influence of 3D printing process parameters on the mechanical properties and mass of PLA parts and predictive models. Rapid Prototyp J2021; 27: 487–495.
70.
YadavPSahaiASharmaRS. Strength and surface characteristics of FDM-based 3D printed PLA parts for multiple infill design patterns. J Inst Eng Ser C2021; 102: 197–207.
71.
Pastor-ArtiguesM-MRoure-FernándezFAyneto-GubertX, et al.Elastic asymmetry of PLA material in FDM-printed parts: considerations concerning experimental characterisation for use in numerical simulations. Mater2020; 13: 15.
72.
SunQRizviGMBellehumeurCT,et al.Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyp J2008; 14: 72–80.
73.
ModiYKSahuKK. Process parameter optimization for porosity and compressive strength of calcium sulfate based 3D printed porous bone scaffolds. Rapid Prototyp J2021; 27: 245–255.
74.
FrancisVJainPK. Experimental investigations on fused deposition modelling of polymer-layered silicate nanocomposite. Virtual Phys Prototyp2016; 11: 109–121.
75.
KuznetsovVESoloninANTavitovA, et al.Increasing strength of FFF three-dimensional printed parts by influencing on temperature-related parameters of the process. Rapid Prototyp J2020; 26: 107–121.
76.
ZamanUKUZBoeschESiadatA, et al.Impact of fused deposition modeling (FDM) process parameters on strength of built parts using Taguchi’s design of experiments. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 101: 1215–1226.
77.
Heidari-RaraniMEzatiNSadeghiP,et al.Optimization of FDM process parameters for tensile properties of polylactic acid specimens using Taguchi design of experiment method. J Thermoplast Compos Mater2022: 35: 2435–2452.
78.
RodriguezJFRenaudJEThomasJP. Characterization of the mesostructure of fused-deposition acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene materials. Rapid Prototyp J2000; 6: 175–186.
79.
BellehumeurCLiLSunQ,et al.Modeling of bond formation between polymer filaments in the fused deposition modeling process. J Manuf Process2004; 6: 170–178.
80.
CharalampousPKostavelisIKontodinaT,et al.Learning-based error modeling in FDM 3D printing process. Rapid Prototyp J2021; 27: 507–517.
81.
PanAHuangZGuoR,et al.Effect of FDM process on adhesive strength of polylactic acid (PLA). Filament2016; 667: 181–186.
82.
YangLLiSLiY, et al.Experimental investigations for optimizing the extrusion parameters on FDM PLA printed parts. J Mater Eng Perform2019; 28: 169–182.
83.
LuzaninOGuduricVRisticI,et al.Investigating impact of five build parameters on the maximum flexural force in FDM specimens—a definitive screening design approach. Rapid Prototyp J2017; 23: 1088–1098.
84.
WangPZouBXiaoH, et al.Effects of printing parameters of fused deposition modeling on mechanical properties, surface quality, and microstructure of PEEK. J Mater Process Technol2019; 271: 62–74.
85.
DabiriSSchmidSTryggvasonG. Fully resolved numerical simulations of fused deposition modeling. In: ASME 2014 international manufacturing science and engineering conference MSEC 2014 collocated with JSME 2014 international conference on materials and processing and the 42nd North American manufacturing research conference, June 9–13, 2014 Detroit, Michigan, USA, ASME, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2014-4107.
86.
XinhuaLShengpengLZhouL, et al.An investigation on distortion of PLA thin-plate part in the FDM process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2015; 79: 1117–1126.
87.
WachRAWolszczakPAdamus-WlodarczykA. Enhancement of mechanical properties of FDM-PLA parts via thermal annealing. Macromol Mater Eng2018; 303: 1800169.
88.
YangLLiSLiY, et al.Experimental investigations for optimizing the extrusion parameters on FDM PLA printed parts. J Mater Eng Perform2019; 28: 169–182.
89.
LuzaninOMovrinDStathopoulosV, et al.Impact of processing parameters on tensile strength, in-process crystallinity and mesostructure in FDM-fabricated PLA specimens. Rapid Prototyp J2019; 25: 1398–1410.
90.
LuzaninOMovrinDGuduricV. Impact of processing parameters on tensile strength, in-process crystallinity and mesostructure in FDM-fabricated PLA specimens. Rapid Prototyp J2019; 25: 1398–1410.
91.
ValergaAPBatistaMSalgueroJ,et al.Influence of PLA filament conditions on characteristics of FDM parts. Materials2018; 11: 1322.
92.
MoradiMKarami MoghadamMShamsborhanM,et al.The synergic effects of FDM 3D printing parameters on mechanical behaviors of bronze poly lactic acid composites. J Compos Sci2020; 4: 17.
93.
SoaresJBFinamorJSilvaFP, et al.Analysis of the influence of polylactic acid (PLA) colour on FDM 3D printing temperature and part finishing. Rapid Prototyp J2018; 24: 1305–1316.
94.
BarlettaMGisarioAMehrpouyaM. 4D Printing of shape memory polylactic acid (PLA) components: investigating the role of the operational parameters in fused deposition modelling (FDM). J Manuf Process2021; 61: 473–480.
95.
ValentanBKadivnikŽBrajlihT, et al.Processing poly(ether etherketone) on a 3D printer for thermoplastic modelling. Mater Technol2013; 47: 715–721.
96.
JaekelDJMacDonaldDWKurtzSM. Characterization of PEEK biomaterials using the small punch test. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2011; 4: 1275–1282.
97.
ChaidasDKitsakisKKechagiasJ,et al.The impact of temperature changing on surface roughness of FFF process. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2016; 161: 012033.
98.
CerettiDVAFiorioRVan WaeleghemT, et al.Exploiting mono- and hybrid nanocomposite materials for fused filament fabrication with acrylonitrile butadiene styrene as polymer matrix. J Appl Polym Sci2022; 139: e52922.
99.
DeyAYodoN. A systematic survey of FDM process parameter optimization and their influence on part characteristics. J Manuf Mater Process2019; 3: 64.
100.
FodranEKochMMenonU. Mechanical and dimensional characteristics of fused deposition modeling build styles. In 1996 international solid freeform fabrication symposium, August 12–14, 1996, Austin, USA, University of Texas.
101.
GriffithsCAHowarthJDe Almeida-RowbothamG,et al.A design of experiments approach to optimise tensile and notched bending properties of fused deposition modelling parts. Proc IMechE Part B: j Engineering Manufacture2016; 230: 1502–1512.
102.
GriffithsCAHowarthJDe Almeida-RowbothamG, et al.A design of experiments approach for the optimisation of energy and waste during the production of parts manufactured by 3D printing. J Clean Prod2016; 139: 74–85.
103.
AydinMBayarCDumlupinarFY, et al.Investigation of the FDM process performance at different printing parameters. In International Symposium on 3DPrinting Technologies 3D-PTS2017, 03-04 APRIL 2017, Turkey.
104.
TorresJCoteloJKarlJ,et al.Mechanical property optimization of FDM PLA in shear with multiple objectives. JOM2015; 67: 1183–1193.
105.
KamaalMAnasMRastogiH, et al.Effect of FDM process parameters on mechanical properties of 3D-printed carbon fibre–PLA composite. Prog Addit Manuf2021; 6: 63–69.
106.
LeeBHAbdullahJKhanZA. Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for production of flexible ABS object. J Mater Process Technol2005; 169: 54–61.
107.
Chung WangCLinTHuS. Optimizing the rapid prototyping process by integrating the Taguchi method with the Gray relational analysis. Rapid Prototyp J2007; 13: 304–315.
108.
SoodAKOhdarRKMahapatraSS. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts. Mater Des2010; 31: 287–295.
109.
ChangD-YHuangB-H. Studies on profile error and extruding aperture for the RP parts using the fused deposition modeling process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2011; 53: 1027–1037.
110.
MohamedOAMasoodSHBhowmikJL. Analytical modelling and optimization of the temperature-dependent dynamic mechanical properties of fused deposition fabricated parts made of PC-ABS. Materials (Basel)2016; 9: 895.
111.
PantMSingariRMAroraPK, et al.Wear assessment of 3D printed parts of PLA (polylactic acid) using Taguchi design and artificial neural network (ANN) technique. Mater Res Express2020; 7: 115307.
112.
Lalegani DezakiMMohd AriffinMKAHatamiS. An overview of fused deposition modelling (FDM): research, development and process optimisation. Rapid Prototyp J2021; 27: 562–582.
113.
FrankDFadelG. Expert system-based selection of the preferred direction of build for rapid prototyping processes. J Intell Manuf1995; 6: 339–345.
114.
RayeganiFOnwuboluGC. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter prediction and optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE). Int J Adv Manuf Technol2014; 73: 509–519.
115.
MotapartiKPTaylorGLeuMC, et al.Experimental investigation of effects of build parameters on flexural properties in fused deposition modelling parts. Virtual Phys Prototyp2017; 12: 207–220.
116.
SrivastavaMRatheeS. Optimisation of FDM process parameters by Taguchi method for imparting customised properties to components. Virtual Phys Prototyp2018; 13: 203–210.
117.
KalitaSJBoseSHosickHL,et al.Development of controlled porosity polymer-ceramic composite scaffolds via fused deposition modeling. Mater Sci Eng C2003; 23: 611–620.
118.
KumarYRRaoCSPReddyTAJ. A robust process optimisation for fused deposition modelling. Int J Manuf Technol Manag2008; 14: 228–245.
119.
GebisaAWLemuHG. Investigating effects of fused-deposition modeling (FDM) processing parameters on flexural properties of ULTEM 9085 using designed experiment. Materials (Basel)2018; 11: 1–23.
120.
AbdullahZTingHYAliMAM, et al.The effect of layer thickness and raster angles on tensile strength and flexural strength for fused deposition modeling (FDM) parts. J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 12: 147–158.
121.
DhanabalanSSivakumarKNarayananCS. Analysis of form tolerances in electrical discharge machining process for Inconel 718 and 625. Mater Manuf Process2014; 29: 253–259.
122.
AsokanPKumarRRJeyapaulR,et al.Development of multi-objective optimization models for electrochemical machining process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2008; 39: 55–63.
123.
PattersonAEPereiraTRAllisonJT,et al.IZOD Impact properties of full-density fused deposition modeling polymer materials with respect to raster angle and print orientation. Proc IMechE Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2019; 0: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406219840385.
124.
MohamedOAMasoodSHBhowmikJL. Characterization and dynamic mechanical analysis of PC-ABS material processed by fused deposition modelling: an investigation through I-optimal response surface methodology. Measurement2017; 107: 128–141.
125.
Unnikrishna PillaiJSanghrajkaIShunmugavelM, et al.Optimisation of multiple response characteristics on end milling of aluminium alloy using Taguchi–Grey relational approach. Meas J Int Meas Confed2018; 124: 291–298.
126.
TerekhinaSSkornyakovITarasovaT,et al.Effects of the infill density on the mechanical properties of nylon specimens made by filament fused fabrication. Technol2019; 7: 57.
127.
Sukindar NA, Ariffin MKAM, Baharudin BTHT, et al. Effects of nozzle die angle on extruding polymethylmethacrylate in open-source 3D printing. J Comput Theor Nanosci 2018; 15: 663–665.
128.
TlegenovYLuWFHongGS. A dynamic model for current-based nozzle condition monitoring in fused deposition modelling. Prog Addit Manuf2019; 4: 211–223.
129.
TlegenovYHongGSLuWF. Nozzle condition monitoring in 3D printing. Robot Comput Integr Manuf2018; 54: 45–55.
130.
MelenkaGWSchofieldJSDawsonMR,et al.Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer. Rapid Prototyp J2015; 21: 618–627.
131.
CarneiroOSSilvaAFGomesR. Fused deposition modeling with polypropylene. Mater Des2015; 83: 768–776.
132.
TaufikMJainPK. Laser assisted finishing process for improved surface finish of fused deposition modelled parts. J Manuf Process2017; 30: 161–177.
133.
SinghJSinghRSinghH. Repeatability of linear and radial dimension of ABS replicas fabricated by fused deposition modelling and chemical vapor smoothing process: a case study. Measurement2016; 94: 5–11.
134.
Fernandez-VicenteM. Effect of infill parameters on tensile mechanical behavior in desktop 3D printing. 3D Print Addit Manuf2016; 3: 183–192.
135.
KattethotaGHendersonM. A visual tool to improve layered manufacturing part quality. Solid Free Fabr Proceedings, August, 1998; 1998: 327–334.
136.
DizonJRCEsperaAHChenQ,et al.Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Addit Manuf2018; 20: 44–67.
137.
Gartner survey reveals that high acquisition and start-up costs are delaying investment in 3D printers, n.d.
138.
2015 Roundup of 3D printing market forecasts and estimates, n.d.
139.
TaufikMJainPK. Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing: a review. Int J Manuf Technol Manage2014; 27: 47–73.
140.
ConnerBPManogharanGPMartofAN, et al.Making sense of 3-D printing: creating a map of additive manufacturing products and services. Addit Manuf2014; 1: 64–76.
141.
GuessasmaSBelhabibSNouriH,et al.Anisotropic damage inferred to 3D printed polymers using fused deposition modelling and subject to severe compression. Eur Polym J2016; 85: 324–340.
142.
AremuAOMaskeryITuckC. A comparative finite element study of cubic unit cells for selective laser melting—self-supporting unit cells, n.d.:1238–1249.
Webbe KerekesTLimHJoeWY,et al.Characterization of process–deformation/damage property relationship of fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D-printed specimens. Addit Manuf2019; 25: 532–544.
145.
ReddyBVReddyNVGhoshA. Fused deposition modelling using direct extrusion. Virtual Phys Prototyp2007; 2: 51–60.
146.
VolpatoNKretschekDFoggiattoJA,et al.Experimental analysis of an extrusion system for additive manufacturing based on polymer pellets. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2015; 81: 1519–1531.
147.
SinghGMissiaenJMBouvardD,et al.Copper extrusion 3D printing using metal injection moulding feedstock: analysis of process parameters for green density and surface roughness optimization. Addit Manuf2021; 38: 101778.
148.
YangCWangBLiD,et al.Modelling and characterisation for the responsive performance of CF/PLA and CF/PEEK smart materials fabricated by 4D printing. Virtual Phys Prototyp2017; 12: 69–76.
149.
TianJZhangRWuY,et al.Additive manufacturing of wood flour/polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) fully bio-based composites based on micro-screw extrusion system. Mater Des2021; 199: 109418.
150.
KumarNJainPKTandonP,et al.Investigations on the melt flow behaviour of aluminium filled ABS polymer composite for the extrusion-based additive manufacturing process. Int J Mater Prod Technol2019; 59: 194–211.
151.
YuLRamaswamyHSBoyeJ. Twin-screw extrusion of corn flour and soy protein isolate (SPI) blends: a response surface analysis. Food Bioprocess Technol2012; 5: 485–497.
152.
KumarNJainPKTandonP,et al.Investigation on the effects of process parameters in CNC assisted pellet based fused layer modeling process. J Manuf Process2018; 35: 428–436.
153.
HeQJiangJYangX, et al.Additive manufacturing of dense zirconia ceramics by fused deposition modeling via screw extrusion. J Eur Ceram Soc2021; 41: 1033–1040.
154.
KumarNJainPKTandonP,et al.3D printing of flexible parts using EVA material. Mater Phys Mech2018; 37: 124–132.
155.
KumarNJainPKTandonP,et al.Extrusion-based additive manufacturing process for producing flexible parts. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng2018; 40: 143.
156.
KumarNJainPKTandonP,et al.The effect of process parameters on tensile behavior of 3D printed flexible parts of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). J Manuf Process2018; 35: 317–326.
157.
KumarRSinghRKumarV,et al.On Mn doped ZnO nanoparticles reinforced in PVDF matrix for fused filament fabrication: mechanical, thermal, morphological and 4D properties. J Manuf Process2021; 62: 817–832.
158.
KumarRSinghRAhujaIPS,et al.Processing techniques of polymeric materials and their reinforced composites. Adv Mater Process Technol2020; 6: 591–607.
159.
LiuXChiBJiaoZ, et al.A large-scale double-stage-screw 3D printer for fused deposition of plastic pellets. J Appl Polym Sci2017; 134: 45147.
160.
BelliniAShorLGuceriSI. New developments in fused deposition modeling of ceramics. Rapid Prototyp J2005; 11: 214–220.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
