Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

A method to predict the ultimate tensile strength of 3D printing polylactic T

acid (PLA) materials with different printing orientations
Tianyun Yao, Zichen Deng∗, Kai Zhang∗∗, Shiman Li
School of Mechanics, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, 710072, PR China

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

Keywords: 3D Printing is widely used in scientific researches and engineering applications, ranging from aerospace to
3D printing biomedicine. However little is known about the mechanical properties of 3D printing materials. In order to
Transverse isotropy promote the mechanical analysis and design of 3D printing structures, the ultimate tensile strength of FDM PLA
Anisotropic yield criterion materials with different printing angles were studied theoretically and experimentally. A theoretical model was
Ultimate tensile strength
firstly established to predict the ultimate tensile strength of FDM PLA materials based on transverse isotropic
hypothesis, classical lamination theory and Hill-Tsai anisotropic yield criterion, and then verified by tensile
experiments. Compared with previous models, this model provided two kinds of in-plane shear modulus cal-
culation methods, so the calculation results were more reliable. The specimens, designed according to the
current plastic-multipurpose test specimens standard ISO 527-2-2012, were printed in seven different angles (0∘ ,
15∘ , 30∘ , 45∘ , 60∘ , 75∘ , 90∘ ) with three layer thicknesses (0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.3 mm) for each angle. The relative
residual sum of squares between theoretical data and experimental data were all close to zero, so the results that
the theoretical model can accurately predict the ultimate tensile strength of FDM materials for all angles and
thicknesses were confirmed. It was also found that the ultimate tensile strength decreased as the printing angle
becomes smaller or the layer becomes thicker. This theoretical model and experimental method can also be
applied to other 3D printing materials fabricated by FDM or SLA techniques.

1. Introduction
It has been 35 years since Charies W. Hull got the genius idea to
build objects by 3D printing technology [1–3]. 3D printing is a special,
novel and creative additive manufacturing technology that creates ob-
jects through digitized model without traditional expensive cutting
machines or casting machines [4–8]. It also has absolute predominance
in producing components with complex shape and multi-materials
components compared to any other methods [9–13]. Meanwhile, a lot
of raw materials can be saved during printing process. Now 3D printing
components often appear in various fields, such as biomedicine
[14–16,38], aerospace [14,17], automotive engineering [18], civil en-
gineering [19], food [20] and so on.
Till now, there are various 3D printing techniques. The most fre-
quently-used 4 techniques are stereolithography (SLA) [21], fused de-
position modeling (FDM) [22], selective laser melting (SLM) [23], and
selective laser sintering (SLS) [24], where SLA is liquid-based technique
while the other 3 are solid-based. The FDM, developed by stratasys. Inc,
has become one of the most famous 3D printing techniques throughout
the world. In the FDM process, objects are built layer by layer, leading
to their anisotropic mechanical properties. Firstly, the raw materials is
extruded into the nozzle and transformed to semi-liquid state from the
original filement state. After that, the semi-liquid materials is deposited
onto the previous layer and cools, solidifies and integrates with the
surrounding materials. When the whole layer is deposited, the platform
supporting the object moves down by the height of one layer and the
next layer will be printed. Mohan N et al. [25] reviewed the materials
and process parameters optimisation of the FDM process. Thermoplastic
materials such as PLA, ABS, metal matrix composites, ceramic compo-
sites and natural fibre-reinforced composites are widely adopted in
FDM printers.
Although 3D printing technology has great advantages in producing
complicated or multi-material parts, its utilization is limited as the
mechanical properties of 3D printing parts are not sufficiently studied.
For instance, the elastic constants and strength are indispensable in the
design process of load-bearing components or structures. In order to
extend and expedite the engineering application of 3D printing tech-
nology, some studies have been devoted to the mechanical properties of

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dweifan@nwpu.edu.cn (Z. Deng), kzhang@nwpu.edu.cn (K. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.025
Received 25 July 2018; Received in revised form 31 December 2018; Accepted 2 January 2019
Available online 03 January 2019
1359-8368/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Yao et al.
the 3D printing parts. They can be roughly divided into two aspects. On
one hand, some elastic properties of 3D printing materials have been
researched. Rodríguez JF et al. [26] experimentally analyzed the me-
chanical behavior of FDM ABS plastic materials. They found that elastic
modulus and ultimate strength value had obvious reduction from the
ABS monofilament feedstock to FDM ABS materials. Somireddy M et al.
[27] established a constitutive model for the 3D printing parts and this
model can capture the influence of building orientation and layer
thickness on the materials behavior of the printed parts. Zou R et al.
[28] investigated the elasticity and yielding performance of ABS ma-
terials created by 3D printing and quantitatively evaluated the effect of
printing orientation on mechanical properties with experiments. During
their study, a transverse isotropic model was put forward in form of
constitutive equations. Domingo-Espin M et al. [29] established a good
method to define a stiffness matrix of orthotropic materials to simulate
FDM parts. Then, a simple structure was designed and printed in dif-
ferent angles to be physically tested and the results of the test indicated
that the elastic stiffness matrix was effective. Casavola C et al. [30]
described the mechanical behavior of FDM parts by the classical lami-
nate theory and measured the values of the elastic modulus in the
longitudinal and transverse directions to the fibre (E1, E2 ), the poisson's
ratio (ν12 ) and the shear modulus (G12 ) experimentally. Francis V et al.
[31] investigated the mechanical properties of polymer-layered silicate
nanocomposite fabricated by FDM. They found that nanocomposite was
suitable for using in FDM because of significant improvements in me-
chanical properties, reduced porosity and better neck formation.
On the other hand, the strength of 3D printing materials has also
been studied to some extent. Ahn SH et al. [32] evaluated FDM printing
parameters through experiments and found that raster orientation and
air gap had greater effect on tensile strength of FDM materials than
others. The compressive strength of FDM materials was higher than the
tensile strength and was not affected much by build direction. A
strategy for optimizing the design of FDM ABS components about
stiffness and strength under a given set of loading conditions was in-
troduced in the research result of Rodríguez JF et al. [33]. Es-Said OS
et al. [34] investigated the mechanical properties of ABS FDM models
with different printing angles including tensile strength, modulus of
rupture and impact resistance. They found that the 0∘ printing angle
displayed highest strength and impact resistance over all the other or-
ientation. Sood AK et al. [35] concentrated on comprehending the ef-
fect of printing parameters on the compressive strength of FDM parts
including layer thickness, building orientations, raster width and air
gap. A statistically validated predictive equation which was used to find
optimal parameter setting was developed in this work. Abadi HA et al.
[36] investigated the mechanical performance of fibre-reinforced
polymer 3D printing structures. The results indicated that the level of
fibre reinforcements and their orientation arrangement had significant
effects on the structural performance of FRP 3D printing composite
components. Motaparti KP et al. [37] experimentally researched the
flexural properties of FDM components. The flexural properties were
found mainly depending on building parameters including building
direction, raster angle and negative air gap.
On account of the manufacturing procedure, FDM components al-
ways show anisotropic property. Numerous experimental and theore-
tical research have been carried out about the elastic constitutive
equations and anisotropic elastic properties of 3D printing parts during
previous studies. Meanwhile, parametric analysis has been done for
ultimate tensile and compressive strength of 3D printing materials and
some qualitative results have also been acquired. However, few studies
Table 1
Properties of PLA filament.
Average Filament Diameter (mm) Recommended Printing Temp. (°C)
1.75 ± 0.05 195∼230
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402
have been done on quantitative analysis of the influence of printing
angle on Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS). The accurate prediction of
UTS is an important parameter in structural design because it conduces
to the balance between the safety and the weight of the structures.
Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to quantitatively evaluate the
effect of printing angles on UTS and develop a theoretical model for the
UTS of 3D printing materials.
A theoretical model for predicting the UTS of FDM 3D printing
materials is established in this paper. Meanwhile, the influence of
printing angle and layer thickness on UTS are tested and analyzed by
tensile experiments. Then, the theoretical model is further improved
and modified by the results of experiment. Finally, a model with a
certain degree of accuracy will be obtained which can predict the UTS
of FDM materials with different kinds of printing angles and layer
thickness. These results can also be used in optimizing the distribution
of materials in the structure printed by 3D printing technology.
The remainder of this paper is outlined as follows. The experimental
materials, dimension of the specimens and experimental machine are
described in detail in section 2. The transverse isotropic properties of
3D printing materials are analyzed and two theoretical models for
predicting the UTS of 3D printing materials in section 3. The fracture
properties of specimens after uniaxial tensile test have been displayed
while the agreement between theoretical models and experimental data
have also been analyzed thoroughly in section 4. Four conclusions of
this paper have been drawn in section 5.
2. Materials and experiment
2.1. 3D printing machine and printing materials
Test specimens studied in this work are printed by MakerBot
Replicator 5 + desktop 3D printer (MakerBot Industries, Brooklyn,
USA) with 1.75 mm diameter PLA filament. Printing parameters are
specified and controlled by MakerBot Printing control software of
version 3.0.4.6114. The materials of MakerBot Replicator 5 + is limited
to the PLA filament. The thickness of printing layer ranges from
0.05 mm to 1.2 mm, but only 0.05 mm–0.4 mm is suitable for me-
chanical properties test. Thus we choose 3 layer thicknesses in our
tensile test: 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm. The filement is heated to
215∘C during the printing process.
The materials is PLA filement produced by Ploymaker Industries
(Shanghai, China). The properties of PLA filament are shown in Table 1.
2.2. Uniaxial tensile experiment
2.2.1. Dimension of specimens
According to ISO 527-2-2012 (International standard, plastics
Determination of tensile properties Part 2: Test conditions for moulding
and extrusion plastics), we determined the geometric model of 3D
printing specimens as shown in Fig. 1.
2.2.2. Printing situation of specimens
There are 7 kinds of printing situation for specimens. The specimens
are printed layer by layer during the FDM 3D printing process, so it is
rational to consider printed object as transverse isotropic materials. In
order to get different kinds of transverse isotropic plane, we prepared
specimens based on the different kinds of printing angles, including 0∘,
15∘, 30∘, 45∘, 60∘, 75∘, 90∘ . Here, the printing angle (θ ) is defined as the
angle between the tensile direction of specimen and the increasing
Recommended Printing Speed (mm/s) Colour Recommended HBP Temp.
40∼90 15 Not Required
394
T. Yao et al.
Fig. 1. The geometric model of 3D printing specimen for uniaxial tensile test.
Fig. 2. The printing situation and angles of 3D printing specimens.
Fig. 3. Schematic of 3D printing specimens with support structure.
Fig. 4. Schematic of tensile machine and specimens under test.
direction of PLA materials. The printing situation and angles are shown
in Fig. 2. Considering the problem of excessively high hanging angle
during printing process, almost every specimen has the support struc-
tures which are shown in Fig. 3.
2.2.3. Tensile machine and condition
In order to investigate the mechanical properties of the PLA
395
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402
Fig. 5. Materials direction and load direction of single-layer composite mate-
rials (θ is angle between materials direction 1 and load direction x).
materials printed by 3D printing technology, uniaxial tensile tests are
carried out during this study. The computer-controlled electronic uni-
versal tensile machine that we use is provided by Changchun Institute
of Mechanical Science China. Specimens under test and the tensile
machine are shown in Fig. 4. The tensile speed is 0.1 mm/min and the
temperature keeps 23 °C during the whole tensile course. So we can
confirm that the test condition is normal temperature and quasi-static
loading.
3. Theoretical model
3.1. Anisotropic constitutive modeling
As mentioned earlier, the FDM 3D printing objects are fabricated
layer by layer and we can consider the objects as transverse isotropic
materials. Each printing layer is isotropic materials in plane. Therefore,
the elastic constitutive relation of this type of materials can be ex-
pressed in the form of matrix as shown in Eq. (1).
T. Yao et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402

ε ⎡ S11 S12 S12 0 0 0⎤ σ

⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎢ S12 S22 S23 0
1
0 0 ⎥ ⎡ σ2 ⎤
ε2
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥
0 ⎥
0 0 ⎢ σ3 ⎥
⎢ ε3 ⎥ = ⎢ S12 S23 S22 ⎥
⎢ ε4 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 2(S22 − S23) 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ σ4 ⎥
⎢ ε5 ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ε6 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 S55 0 ⎥ ⎢ σ5 ⎥
⎥ σ6
⎣ ⎦
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 S55 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ (1)
For plane stress state (σ3 = 0 , τ23 = σ4 = 0 , τ31 = σ5 = 0 ), the con-
stitutive equation can be expressed as following.

ε S S 0 ⎤ σ1
⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎡ 11 12
ε ⎡ ⎤ ⎫
⎢ ⎥2 = ⎢ S12 S 22 0 ⎥ ⎢ σ2 ⎥ ⎪
⎣ γ12 ⎦ ⎢ ⎥ τ
⎣ 0 0 S55 ⎦ ⎣ 12 ⎦ ⎬
γ31 = γ23 = 0, ε3 = S13 σ1 + S23 σ2 ⎪
⎭ (2)
The flexibility coefficient matrix S in Eq. (2) has four independent
elastic constants, namely S11, S12 , S22 and S55. These four constants can
be expressed as functions of engineering constants(Young's modulus E1,
E2 , Poisson's ratio ν12 , ν21 and shear modulus G12 ).
1
⎧ S11 = E1
⎪ 1
⎪ S22 = E2
⎨ S55 = 1
⎪ G12
⎪ S12 = −ν 21
=
−ν12
⎩ E1 E2 (3)
In order to get stiffness matrix Q, Eq. (2) can also be expressed as Eq.
(4) through matrix inversion.

σ Q11 Q12 0 ⎤ ε1
⎡ σ1 ⎤ ⎡ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ 2 = ⎢ Q12 Q22 0 ⎥ ⎢ ε2 ⎥
τ
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ 0
12 ⎢ 0 Q55 ⎦ ⎣ γ12 ⎦
⎥
(4)
The constitutive equation in any direction including main direction
of materials can be expressed as Eq. (5).
σ σ1 ε1 ε
⎡ σx ⎤ −1 ⎡ ⎤ −1 ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ x⎤
−1 T ε
⎢ y ⎥ = T ⎢ σ2 ⎥ = T Q ⎢ ε2 ⎥ = T Q (T ) ⎢ y ⎥
−1

⎣ τxy ⎥
⎢ ⎦ ⎣ τ12 ⎦ ⎣ γ12 ⎦ ⎢ γ
⎣ xy ⎥
⎦ (5)
Here, T is the stress rotation matrix. The expression of T is shown as
Eq. (6).
2 sin2 θ
⎡ cos θ 2 sin θ cos θ ⎤
T=⎢ sin2 θ cos2 θ − 2 sin θ cos θ ⎥
⎢− sin θ cos θ sin θ cos θ cos2 θ − sin2 θ ⎥ (6)
⎣ ⎦

3.2. The anisotropic yield criterion

In three-dimension space, the anisotropic yield criterion can be

expressed as Eq. (7).

(G + H ) σ12 + (F + H ) σ22 + (F + G ) σ32 − 2Hσ1 σ2

2 2 2
− 2Gσ1 σ3 − 2Fσ2 σ3 + 2Lτ23 + 2Mτ31 + 2Nτ12 =1 (7)
where F, G, H, L, M, N are parameters characteristic of the state of
anisotropy. It must be remembered that the yield criterion only has this
form when the principal axes of anisotropy are the axes of reference;
otherwise the form changes in a way that can be found by transforming
the stress components.
Fig. 6. Fracture property of specimens. If X, Y, Z are the ultimate tensile stress in the principal directions of
anisotropy, it can be easily obtained.
1 1 1 1
= G + H, 2 F= + − 2⎫
X2 Y2 Z2 X
1 1 1 1
⎪
= H + F, 2 G= 2 + − 2
Y2 Z X2 Y ⎬
1 1 1 1
= F + G, 2 H= 2 + − 2⎪
Z2 X Y2 Z ⎭ (8)
It is clear that only one of F, G, H can be negative, and this is

396
T. Yao et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402

Fig. 7. The concept of in-layer fracture and interlayer fracture.

Fig. 8. Feature and detail of the fracture surface.

possible only when the yield stress differ considerably. If U, V, W are Here L, M, N are essentially positive.
the ultimate bearing stress in shear with respect to the principal axes of
anisotropy, then the following Eq. (9) can be obtained. 3.3. The anisotropic yield criterion for plane stress state

1 1 1 During this study, we build two coordinate systems for this ques-
2L = , 2 M= 2 , 2 N=
U2 V W2 (9) tion. Coordinate system 123 represents the materials direction and

397
T. Yao et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402

Table 2
Fracture forms of specimens.
Layer thickness (mm) Fracture forms

In-layer fracture Interlayer fracture

0.1 30∘ , 60∘ , 75∘ , 90∘ 0∘ , 15∘ , 45∘

0.2 60∘ , 75∘ , 90∘ 0∘ , 15∘ , 30∘ , 45∘
0.3 75∘ , 90∘ 0∘ , 15∘ , 30∘ , 45∘ , 60∘

Table 3
UTS and elastic constants for different kinds of materials.
UTS(MPa) 0.1 mm layer 0.2 mm layer 0.3 mm layer
thickness thickness thickness

T 0∘ 26.65 ± 1.50 25.56 ± 0.51 23.78 ± 0.26

T 45∘ 32.25 ± 0.25 30.68 ± 0.62 29.16 ± 0.14
T 90∘ 55.86 ± 1.17 53.08 ± 1.11 45.26 ± 0.28
E 0∘ 1523 ± 118 1963 ± 75 1517 ± 24
E 45∘ 1546 ± 109 2086 ± 100 1707 ± 42
E 90∘ 1668 ± 119 2226 ± 76 1676 ± 49

Coordinate system xyz represents the load direction.

As we talked thereinbefore, the specimen can be simplified to
transverse isotropic materials. The coordinate plane 23 represents the
transverse isotropic plane in the materials coordinate system. Then
materials in direction 2 and direction 3 have same mechanical prop-
erties.
The tensile situation of specimens can be approximately simplified
as plane stress state because of their special dimension. So the me-
chanical theory of single-layer composite materials can be used in this
analysis. Fig. 5 shows the schematic of materials direction (coordinate
system 12) and load direction (coordinate system xy) of single-layer
composite materials. For single-layer composite materials, F, G, H, L, M,
N are substituted by X, Y, W in the Eq. (8).
For the plane stress state.
σ3 = τ13 = τ23 = 0 (10)
Basing on the above assumptions, we can get the equations below.
1 1
Y=Z⇒H=G= , F+H= 2
2X 2 Y (11)
Then, Hill-Tsai anisotropic yield criterion can be expressed as fol-
lowing.
σ12 σ2 σσ τ2
+ 22 − 1 22 + 122 = 1
X2 Y X W (12)
If there is only σx in the loading direction of the specimen, we can
get the stress components in the materials reference system as shown in
Eq. (13). Fig. 9. UTS comparison between theoretical data and test data.
2
⎧ σ1 = σx cos θ
σ2 = σx sin2 θ 3.4. In plane shear strength W
⎨
⎩ τ12 = −σx sin θ cos θ (13)
Usually, the in plane shear strength W is obtained from parameters
Combining Eq. (12) and Eq. (13), we can get the expression of σx as and test results of specimens with 45∘ printing orientation. Here, two
Eq. (14). methods are provided to obtain the in plane shear strength W.
−1
cos4 θ 1 1 sin4 θ ⎤ 2
σx = Tθ = ⎡ 2
+ ⎛ 2 − 2 ⎞ sin2 θ cos2 θ + (1). Basing on the standard formula of shear strength of composite
⎢
⎣ X ⎝ W X ⎠ Y2 ⎥ ⎦ (14)
P 45∘
Wsf =
2bt (15)
X – UTS of materials main direction 1
Y – UTS of materials main direction 2
P 45∘ – ultimate bearing capacity of specimens with 45∘ printing
W – ultimate shear strength of plane 12
orientation
Tθ – UTS of load direction (T0∘ = X , T90∘ = Y )
b – width of specimens
t – thickness of specimens

398
T. Yao et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402

Fig. 11. Influence of layer thickness on UTS.

3.5. Two theoretical models

Till now, two theoretical models are available to predict the UTS of
FDM 3D printing materials with different printing angles.

(1). Theoretical model 1

Based on Eq. (14) and the standard formula of shear strength of

composite, theoretical model 1 is obtained as following.
−1
2
⎡ cos4 θ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ sin4 θ ⎤
Tθ = ⎢ + ⎜ 2 − 2 ⎟ sin2 θ cos2 θ +
X 2
⎝ Wsf X ⎠ Y2 ⎥ (18)
⎣ ⎦
Fig. 10. UTS comparison between theoretical data and test data.
(2). Theoretical model 2

(2). Basing on Hill-Tsai anisotropic yield criterion Based on Eqs. (14) and (16), theoretical model 2 is obtained as
following.
From Eq. (14), the expression of in plane shear strength can be
−1
obtained as following Eq. (16). cos4 θ sin4 θ ⎤ 2
Tθ = ⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 2 2
⎢ X 2 + ⎜ W 2 − X 2 ⎟ sin θ cos θ + Y 2 ⎥
−1 ⎣ ⎝ HT ⎠ ⎦ (19)
1 1 cos2 θ 1 sin2 θ 1 2
WHT = ⎡ 2 − 2⋅ 2 − 2 ⋅ + 2⎤
⎢ Tθ sin2 θ cos2 θ X sin θ Y cos2 θ X ⎥ (16)
⎣ ⎦
4. Results and discussion
Supposing that the UTS T45∘ of specimens with 45∘ printing or-
ientation has already been obtained. At the same time, θ = 45∘ is known 4.1. Fracture properties of specimens after uniaxial tensile failure
conditions. Then, Eq. (16) can be simplified as following.
During this tensile test, 70 specimens are stretched to failure and the
−1
4 1 ⎤ 2 corresponding 70 sets of data are obtained. Among these test data, we
WHT =⎡
⎢ T2 ∘ − Y 2 ⎥ choose 63 sets of data which are more credible and rational than others.
⎣ 45 ⎦ (17)
And these data are used to predict and verify the UTS of specimens. The

399
T. Yao et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402

Table 5
RRSS between TAD and theoretical data.
Data type 0.1 mm 0.2 mm 0.3 mm

Theoretical data 1 0.0058 0.0011 0.0025

Theoretical data 2 0.0044 0.0018 0.0033

Fig. 13. RRSS between TAD and theoretical data.

materials plane layer by layer (materials layer). In-layer fracture means

that the angle (β ) between the fracture surface of materials and the
materials layer is larger than 0, and the materials layer is no longer
intact after fracture. Interlayer fracture means that the angle (β ) be-
tween the fracture surface of materials and the materials layer is 0, and
the materials layer is still intact after fracture. It can be clearly seen
from Fig. 8 that both in-layer fracture and interlayer fracture occur in
the experiments. The angles displayed by the red font are the printing
angle and β displayed by the blue font are the angles between the
fracture surface of materials and the materials layer.
The specific fracture forms are also shown in Table 2 and we can
find two obvious phenomena in the table. First, in-layer fracture of
specimens becomes interlayer fracture with the printing angle de-
creasing from 90∘ to 0∘ . Second, interlayer fracture of specimens turn
into domination with the layer thickness increasing from 0.1 mm to
0.3 mm. These phenomena indicate that in-layer fracture is more likely
to happen when printing layer thickness is small and materials is more
homogeneous. On the contrary, interlayer fracture is more likely to
happen when printing layer thickness is larger and materials has dis-
tinct stratification.

4.2. Comparisons between theoretical data and experiment data

Fig. 12. UTS comparison between theoretical data based on two types of the-
oretical models and TAD.
fractured specimens after uniaxial tensile test are shown in Fig. 6.
Prior to analyzing the fracture of specimens, it is necessary to define
the concepts of in-layer fracture and interlayer fracture. The conceptual
diagram of in-layer fracture and inter-layer fracture is shown in Fig. 7.
FDM 3D printing materials is accumulated from the completed
4.2.1. Mechanical properties for different kinds of materials
UTS and elastic constants for materials with all three kinds of layer
thickness are shown in Table 3, where T0∘ , T45∘ and T90∘ are UTS of ma-
terials with 0∘ , 45∘ and 90∘ printing angles, respectively. They are used
to supplement parameters of equations (18) and (19). Then equations
(18) and (19) have the ability to predict the UTS of materials with other
printing angles. The standard deviation of UTS data stays between 0.14
and 1.50. Then we can confirm that the stability of the test data can be
guaranteed and the test data are reliable.

Table 4
UTSRC (TAD) for 3D printing materials.
Layer thickness (mm) 0∘ 15∘ 30∘ 45∘ 60∘ 75∘ 90∘

0.1 47.71% 51.36% 56.36% 57.73% 63.71% 76.67% 100.00%

0.2 48.15% 53.01% 54.71% 57.80% 70.55% 84.50% 100.00%
0.3 52.54% 59.83% 61.80% 64.43% 76.54% 85.22% 100.00%

400
T. Yao et al.
4.2.2. UTS comparison between theoretical data and experiment data
UTS comparison between theoretical data and test data are shown in
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. The theoretical data in Fig. 9 are calculated based on
the theoretical model 1. And the theoretical data in Fig. 10 are calcu-
lated based on the theoretical model 2. We can draw and confirm the
following two conclusions from all these figures. First, the agreement
between theoretical results and test data is satisfactory to a certain
degree. Second, both theoretical results and test results become bigger
with printing angle increasing from 0∘ to 90∘.
4.3. Influence of layer thickness on UTS
From the conclusions of Section 4.2, we can know that the accuracy
of theoretical data is trustworthy. Therefore, the relationship between
the theoretical data of each layer thickness can be used to describe the
influence of layer thickness on UTS. The conclusion can be drawn from
the results in Fig. 11 that UTS of materials with same printing angle
become smaller as layer thickness increases from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm.
4.4. Discussion about UTS
As we can see in Fig. 12, the UTS of 3D printing materials become
smaller with printing angle decreasing from 90∘ to 0∘ . In order to
quantify this decreasing process, the UTS of test average data (TAD) of
3D printing materials with 90∘ printing angle has been set as a standard
(100%) and the UTS reduction coefficient (UTSRC) of 3D printing
materials with all 7 kinds of printing angles are shown in Table 4. The
UTSRC is defined as Eq. (20).
UTS
UTSRC =
UTS (90∘) (20)
UTS – UTS (TAD) of 3D printing materials with all kinds of printing
angles
UTS(90∘) – UTS (TAD) of 3D printing materials with 90∘ printing
angle
UTSRC – UTS (TAD) reduction coefficient
The UTSRC varies from 47.71% to 100% in Table 4 during this
research. 3D printing materials with 0∘ printing angle and 0.1 mm layer
thickness has the smallest UTSRC 47.71% of all.
In order to compare and analyze which theoretical model of the two
types is more accurate in predicting test data, three kinds of data have
been integrated into Fig. 12. Theoretical data 1 in Fig. 12 is calculated
based on the theoretical model 1 and theoretical data 2 in Fig. 12 is
calculated based on the theoretical model 2. During this comparison,
relative residual sum of squares (RRSS) between TAD and theoretical
data is used as a criterion in evaluating the accuracy that the theoretical
models predict the test data. The closer RRSS is to 0, the more accurate
the theoretical model predicts the test data. The expression of RRSS is
shown as Eq. (21).
RSS
RRSS = 7 reolithography. 1999.
∑i= 1 TADi2 (21)
RSS – residual sum of squares
RRSS – relative residual sum of squares
Obviously, all RRSS are very close to 0 in Table 5, so both the two
theoretical models have the ability to predict the experimental results
accurately. RRSS between TAD and theoretical data 1 is bigger than
that between TAD and theoretical data 2 for materials with 0.1 mm
layer thickness. But, the exact opposite happens for materials with
0.2 mm and 0.3 mm layer thickness. So, we can confirm that the two
theoretical models have equivalent capacity in predicting the UTS of
FDM 3D printing materials with different printing angles. In Table 5, we
401
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402
also can see that the RRSS for materials with 0.1 mm layer thickness is
slight bigger than that for materials with 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm layer
thickness. Maybe this is because the smaller the printing layer thick-
ness, the less stability of mechanical properties the materials has. The
same result can be seen in Fig. 13.
The subtle difference between the two theoretical data is observed
in Fig. 12. The difference between the two types of data is due to the
different calculation methods of shear strength in the theoretical
models, as described in Section 3.4. Shear strength model 2 calculates
the influence of in-layer strength (Y) more than shear strength model 1.
So the data based on theoretical model 2 are slightly larger than those
based on theoretical model 1.
5. Conclusion
The ultimate tensile strength of 3D printed materials processed by
FDM method are investigated. The theoretical models are developed to
analyze the tensile properties of 3D printed materials and verified by
experimental datum. The theoretical and experimental results show
good agreement with each other. Based on the results and discussion in
this paper, the following conclusions are drawn.
1. The experimental results show that UTS of 3D printing materials
changes significantly with the printing angle changing. The largest
gap of UTS is 52.29% which is between the 0∘ and 90∘ 3D printing
materials with 0.1 mm layer thickness.
2. The largest RRSS is 0.0058, which is negligible. Therefore the the-
oretical models are able to predict the experimental results pre-
cisely.
3. Theoretical models based on two types of shear formula have
equivalent capacity in predicting the UTS of FDM 3D printing ma-
terials with different printing orientation. Thus, these types of shear
strength formula are recommended in future studies.
4. Both theoretical and experimental results show that tensile strength
of materials decrease as layer thickness increases from 0.1 mm to
0.3 mm. Meanwhile, interlayer fracture is likely to occur as layer
thickness increases.
Further study can be conducted on what angle the inlayer or in-
terlayer fracture happens and whether there exists a critical angle.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of
China (2017YFB1102801), and the Graduate Innovation Team
Foundation of Northwestern Polytechnical University.
References
[1] Hull CW. Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereo-
lithography. 1984.
[2] Hull CW, Spence ST, Albert DJ, Smalley DR, Harlow RA, Stinebaugh P, et al. Method
and apparatus for production of high resolution three-dimensional objects by ste-
[3] Hull CW. The birth of 3D printing. Res Technol Manag 2015;6.
[4] Melenka GW, Schofield JS, Dawson MR, Carey JP. Evaluation of dimensional ac-
curacy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer. Rapid Prototyp
J 2015;21(5):618–27.
[5] Li L, Sun Q, Bellehumeur C, Gu P. Composite modeling and analysis for fabrication
of FDM prototypes with locally controlled properties. J Manuf Process
2002;4(2):129–41.
[6] Parandoush P, Lin D. A review on additive manufacturing of polymer-fiber com-
posites. Compos Struct 2017:182.
[7] Wang X, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Gou J, Hui D. 3D printing of polymer matrix composites:
a review and prospective. Compos B Eng 2016;110:442–58.
[8] Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D. Additive manufacturing (3D
printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B
Eng 2018:143.
[9] Melenka GW, Cheung BKO, Schofield JS, Dawson MR, Carey JP. Evaluation and
prediction of the tensile properties of continuous fiber-reinforced 3D printed
structures. Compos Struct 2016;153:866–75.
T. Yao et al.
[10] Hinchcliffe SA, Hess KM, Iii WVS. Experimental and theoretical investigation of
prestressed natural fiber-reinforced polylactic acid (PLA) composite materials.
Compos B Eng 2016;95:346–54.
[11] Ferreira RTL, Amatte IC, Dutra TA, Bürger D. Experimental characterization and
micrography of 3D printed PLA and PLA reinforced with short carbon fibers.
Compos B Eng 2017;124:88–100.
[12] Justo J, Távara L, García-Guzmán L, París F. Characterization of 3D printed long
fibre reinforced composites. Compo Struct 2018:185.
[13] Hou Z, Tian* X, Zhang J, Li D. 3D printed continuous fibre reinforced composite
corrugated structure. Compos Struct 2018:184.
[14] Murr LE. Frontiers of 3D printing/additive manufacturing: from human organs to
aircraft fabrication. J Mater Sci Technol 2016;32(10):987–95.
[15] Knowlton S, Yenilmez B, Tasoglu S. Towards single-step biofabrication of organs on
a chip via 3D printing. Trends Biotechnol 2016;34(9):685–8.
[16] Ji S, Guvendiren M. Recent advances in bioink design for 3D bioprinting of tissues
and organs. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2017;5(23).
[17] Kobryn PA, Ontko NR, PL P, TJ S. Additive manufacturing of aerospace alloys for
aircraft structures. Additive manufacturing of aerospace alloys for aircraft struc-
tures. 2006.
[18] Talagani MR, Dormohammadi S, Dutton R, Godines C, Baid H, Abdi F, et al.
Numerical simulation of big area additive manufacturing (3D printing) of a full size
car. SAMPE J 2015;51(4):27.
[19] Labonnote N, Rønnquist A, Manum B, Rüther P. Additive construction: state-of-the-
art, challenges and opportunities. Autom ConStruct 2016;72:347–66.
[20] Lipton JI, Cutler M, Nigl F, Dan C, Lipson H. Additive manufacturing for the food
industry. Trends Food Sci Technol 2015;43(1):114–23.
[21] Jacobs PF, Reid DT. Rapid prototyping & manufacturing—fundamentals of
StereoLithography. Society of Manufacturing Engineers , McGraw-Hill; 1992.
[22] Masood SH. Intelligent rapid prototyping with fused deposition modelling. Rapid
Prototyp J 1996;2(1):24–33.
[23] Yadroitsev I, Bertrand P, Smurov I. Parametric analysis of the selective laser melting
process. Appl Surf Sci 2007;253(19):8064–9.
[24] Agarwala M, Bourell D, Beaman J, Marcus H, Barlow J. Direct selective laser sin-
tering of metals. Int J Powder Metall 1992;1(1):26–36.
[25] Mohan N, Senthil P, Vinodh S, Jayanth N. A review on composite materials and
402
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 393–402
process parameters optimisation for the fused deposition modelling process. Virtual
Phys Prototyp 2017;12(1):47–59.
[26] Rodríguez JF, Thomas JP, Renaud JE. Mechanical behavior of acrylonitrile buta-
diene styrene (ABS) fused deposition materials. Experimental investigation. Rapid
Prototyp J 2001;7(3):148–58.
[27] Somireddy M, Czekanski A, Singh CV. Development of constitutive material model
of 3D printed structure via FDM. 2018. 143–52.
[28] Zou R, Xia Y, Liu S, Hu P, Hou W, Hu Q, et al. Isotropic and anisotropic elasticity
and yielding of 3D printed material. Compos B Eng 2016;99:506–13.
[29] Domingo-Espin M, Puigoriol-Forcada JM, Garcia-Granada AA, Llumà J, Borros S,
Reyes G. Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused deposition
modeling Polycarbonate parts. Mater Des 2015;83:670–7.
[30] Casavola C, Cazzato A, Moramarco V, Pappalettere C. Orthotropic mechanical
properties of fused deposition modelling parts described by classical laminate
theory. Mater Des 2016;90:453–8.
[31] Francis V, Jain PK. Experimental investigations on fused deposition modelling of
polymer-layered silicate nanocomposite. Virtual Phys Prototyp 2016;11(2):109–21.
[32] Ahn SH, Montero M, Dan O, Roundy S, Wright PK. Anisotropic material properties
of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J 2013;8(4):248–57. 10.
[33] Rodríguez JF, Thomas JP, Renaud JE. Design of fused-deposition ABS components
for stiffness and strength. J Mech Des 2003;125(3):545.
[34] Es-Said OS, Foyos J, Noorani R, Mendelson M, Marloth R, Pregger BA. Effect of
layer orientation on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples. Adv Manuf
Process 2000;15(1):107–22.
[35] Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS. Experimental investigation and empirical
modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement. J Adv Res
2012;3(1):81–90.
[36] Abadi HA, Thai HT, Paton-Cole V, Patel VI. Elastic properties of 3D printed fibre-
reinforced structures. Compos Struct 2018;193:8–18.
[37] Motaparti KP, Taylor G, Ming CL, Chandrashekhara K, Castle J, Matlack M.
Experimental investigation of effects of build parameters on flexural properties in
fused deposition modelling parts. Virtual Phys Prototyp 2017;12(2017):1–14.
[38] Lepowsky E, Tasoglu S. 3D printing for drug manufacturing: A perspective on the
future of pharmaceuticals. Int J Bioprint 2018;4(1).