Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Review

Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers

John Ryan C. Dizon a,b , Alejandro H. Espera Jr. a,c , Qiyi Chen a , Rigoberto C. Advincula a,∗
a
Department of Macromolecular Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA
b
Bataan Peninsula State University, City of Balanga, Bataan, 2100, Philippines
c
Ateneo de Davao University, Davao City, 8000, Philippines

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: 3D printing, more formally known as Additive Manufacturing (AM), is already being adopted for rapid
Received 27 June 2017 prototyping and soon rapid manufacturing. This review provides a brief discussion about AM and also
Accepted 5 December 2017 the most employed AM technologies for polymers. The commonly-used ASTM and ISO mechanical test
Available online 9 December 2017
standards which have been used by various research groups to test the strength of the 3D-printed parts
have been reported. Also, a summary of an exhaustive amount of literature regarding the mechanical
PACS codes:
properties of 3D-printed parts is included, specifically, properties under different loading types such as
81.05.Lg
tensile, bending, compressive, fatigue, impact and others. Properties at low temperatures have also been
62.20.F-
62.20.D-
discussed. Further, the effects of fillers as well as post-processing on the mechanical properties have also
62.20.M- been discussed. Lastly, several important questions to consider in the standardization of mechanical test
06.20.F- methods have been raised.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Additive manufacturing
3D printing
Mechanical properties and standards
Polymer
Polymer nanocomposites
Post-processing

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2. Overview of additive manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3. Review of additive manufacturing methods for polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.1. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2. Stereolithography (SLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3. Digital light processing (DLP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4. Selective layer sintering (SLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.5. Three-dimensional printing (3DP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.6. Laminated object manufacturing (LOM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.7. PolyJet technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4. ASTM and ISO standards for mechanical testing of polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5. Mechanical properties of 3D-printed polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.1. Fused filament fabrication (fused deposition modelling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.1. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.2. FDM nanocomposites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.1.3. FDM post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2. Stereolithography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

∗ Corresponding author at: Case Western Reserve University, Department of Macromolecular Science and Engineering, 2100 Adelbert Road, Kent Hale Smith Bldg., Cleveland,
OH 44106, USA.
E-mail address: rca41@case.edu (R.C. Advincula).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.002
2214-8604/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67 45

5.2.1. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5.2.2. SLA nanocomposites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2.3. SLA post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3. Digital light processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.3.1. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.4. Selective laser sintering (SLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.4.1. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.4.2. SLS nanocomposites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.4.3. SLS post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.5. Three-dimensional printing (3DP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.5.1. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.5.2. 3DP post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.6. Polyjet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.6.1. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.6.2. Polyjet nanocomposite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.6.3. Polyjet post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.7. Laminated object manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.7.1. Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6. Approximation of mechanical properties by finite element analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.1. Tensile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2. Compressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7. Assessment of test methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8. Summary and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

1. Introduction in the next several years [45,48]. Tranchard even reported in 2015
that AM has seen a growth rate 34.9% annually, which is the highest
Additive Manufacturing (AM), a.k.a. 3D printing, has been draw- in almost 2 decades [8].
ing increasing interest from industry, as well as the research and For practical applications, the 3D-printed parts should with-
academic communities. Recently, cheaper and faster AM tech- stand various amounts of mechanical and environmental stresses
niques have been developed which can produce high print qualities. during its use. It is important to know the required strengths for
Also, polymer materials for 3D printing are now being produced each application under various loading conditions, and at the very
with a wider range of properties. These advancements continuously least, the physical properties of 3D-printed parts should be simi-
change how the products are designed and manufactured and how lar to those manufactured by traditional methods, such as injection
they are being used by consumers [1–9]. Innovators and inventors molding [50,2,5,51–54].
can now easily produce prototypes of their ideas as 3D printing To limit the scope, this paper is focused only on mechanical char-
greatly simplifies prototype production. The design and fabrication acterization of polymer materials. Generally, plastics have lower
processes have actually been reduced from weeks to a few hours strength than metals but they have lower density and higher strains
[10,11] essentially allowing to innovate on the fly [8]. AM could at failure. In some cases, plastics will have higher strength per
minimize production costs and improve the overall efficiency in the unit weight than metals. Therefore, considering its lower cost and
manufacturing sector [12]. Moreover, AM provides solutions where manufacturability with complex designs, plastics could have more
complex designs are required, with short lead time and small lot advantages in many applications [55]. It is thus not surprising that
sizes [13]. AM is now being seriously considered to produce mate- in a recent survey, polymers account for more than half of the parts
rials for several applications, namely, construction [14,15], apparel currently produced by AM as shown in Fig. 2 [56,57].
[16–18], denstistry [19,8,13] medicine [20–29], electronics [10,30], This review will compile and assess the current test procedures
automotive [8,31–33], robots [31], military [34–37], oceanogra- being employed by different research groups as well as the existing
phy [38], aerospace [39,40,11,41,8], and others. Just recently, a test standards for the analysis of mechanical properties (including
3D-printed Femtosatellite launching device won the design com- deformation and fracture/failure) of Additive Manufactured parts
petition sponsored by Mouser Electronics as shown in Fig. 1. The provided by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
goal of the competition was to design a useful device for astronauts and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). At
to be 3d printed in the International Space Station [41,42]. the moment, there are still no standard test methods for the
Global consumption of 3D printing systems, printing materials, mechanical characterization specifically for additive manufactured
parts, software, and related services amounted to over $13 billion in polymer components [53,37,54,58]. AM technologies and mechan-
2016. Also, worldwide spending on 3D printing is expected to have ical test standards have to satisfy the requirements of consumers
an annual growth rate of 22.3% in the next few years, and ∼$29 bil- and industries [58]. Also, this paper will summarize a large amount
lion of revenues are expected by 2020. In 2015 alone, ∼278,000 of reported mechanical properties of 3D-printed polymeric mate-
desktop 3D printers have been sold worldwide [43,44]. And in rials processed by various additive manufacturing techniques, as
2016, revenues from automotive applications amounted to over well as review the procedures they followed for the different types
$3.9 billion, and ∼$2.4 from Aerospace and defense applications. of mechanical tests they conducted. This will include the mechani-
Considerably high revenues from medical and dental applications, cal test set-up, procedures, sample preparation (including printing
as well as prototyping and prosthetics printing, are also expected technique, post-processing, etc.), polymeric printing materials used
to be realized by 2020 (∼1 billion) [45]. Similar studies have been with/without reinforcements, post-processing and other important
conducted by Credit Suisse [46] and Wohlers [12,47–49] as shown considerations). This study will cover the mechanical properties
in Fig. 2. Several institutions also predict at least a 20% growth rate and evaluation procedures of 3D-printed polymers under the fol-
46 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 1. Femtosatellite launching device [41,42].
lowing conditions: tension, compression, bending, cyclic/fatigue
loading, impact loading, and creep. Fracture toughness and failure
mechanisms, as well as the mechanical properties at cryogenic tem-
peratures will be included in the review. The paper will end with a
discussion on the important considerations for standardization of
mechanical characterization/testing of AM parts.
2. Overview of additive manufacturing
Additive Manufacturing (AM) has been defined as the process
of joining materials to make parts from a 3-dimensional model
data one layer at a time [59,60]. Fig. 3 shows the general addi-
tive manufacturing process flow. As opposed to milling or cutting
a part from a block of material, AM builds up the part, usually layer
upon layer, using powders or liquid. In the case of polymers, fila-
ments are also widely being used [8]. Other terms synonymously
used to AM are as follows: 3D printing, direct digital manufactur-
ing, freeform fabrication, rapid prototyping, additive fabrication,
additive layer manufacturing [61–64]. Further, as opposed to sub-
tractive manufacturing, AM produces much less waste [63]. There
are several diverse processes used for AM. Based on the standard,
AM processes have been classified into seven categories: material
extrusion, vat photo polymerization, powder bed fusion, binder
jetting, sheet lamination, material jetting and directed energy
deposition [5,31,55]. Fig. 4a shows the different AM technolo-
gies together with the corresponding materials and polymerization
methods. Fig. 4b shows a more detailed overview of polymer AM
processing principles [60]. Basically, the process starts with draw-
ing a three-dimensional computer-aided design (CAD) model using
a CAD software. The model is then saved as an STL file format. STL
may stand for stereolithography language”, or stereolithography
tesselation language” [65,61]. AMF, which stands for Additive Man-
ufacturing File format could also be used [66]. Usually, 3D printer
manufacturers provide their own software to slice the model in
the STL file into individual layers. The sliced file will then be sent to
the Additive Manufacturing device, a.k.a. printer. The printer will
then print one layer (2D) on top of the other, and thereby forming
a three-dimensional object in the process. After forming the 3D-
object, it may need some post-processing depending on the desired
property. Post-processing may include curing [62] annealing [4],
painting [62], or others.
3. Review of additive manufacturing methods for polymers
3.1. Fused deposition modeling (FDM)
Scott Crump, the co-founder of Stratasys, patented the Fused
Deposition Modeling (FDM) in 1989 [67]. FDM-based 3D print-
ers are presently the most popular consumer-level 3D printers for
printing polymer composites that is based on extrusion additive
manufacturing (AM) systems. Extrusion-based AM generally fol-
Fig. 2. Parts currently produced by AM systems in the industry [56,57].
lows the printing principle of extruding a material and depositing
onto a platform creating a two-dimensional layer on top of another
resulting to a tangible three-dimensional object [68]. Among other
extrusion-based techniques, FDM is a material-melting technique
which uses a spool of thermoplastic filament such as PC, ABS and
PLA with varying diameters to be melted and extruded through a
heated nozzle. Recently, thermoplastics with higher melting tem-
peratures such as PEEK can already be used as materials for desktop
3D printing [69]. As shown in Fig. 5, the extruded semi-liquid
polymer that is actually printed onto the build platform solidi-
fies instantly, translating the sliced layers of digital data into an
actual printed object [70]. Given this unique mechanism of FDM, the
use of thermoplastic polymers and its specific process of material-
melting are its major limitations. Primarily, the filament itself must
be fabricated with a high quality because the feeding (tension
and compression) and melting (heating) action of FDM will test
its mechanical and thermal stability. The filament must withstand
these stresses, before and after melting, to be able to maintain good
printing quality. Some 3D digital designs are relatively complex
(with overhanging layers) that printing them using FDM may uti-
lize support structures. On the other hand, FDM is known for being
low-cost and capable of high printing speeds as compared to other
3D printing techniques [2,71].
3.2. Stereolithography (SLA)
This was one of the earliest AM techniques developed. The basic
concept of stereolithography (SLA) is to print using a photocur-
able resin, typically epoxy or acrylic, by exposing it to ultraviolet
(UV) light of specific wavelength so the exposed 2D-patterned resin
layers become solid through a process called photopolymerization
[31]. As shown in Fig. 6, a platform is submerged in a reservoir
of liquid polymer in a depth of 0.05–0.15 mm before printing. This
defines the actual layer height or the depth of each slice of the entire
3D object in a .STL file. The UV laser is reflected to the surface of
the liquid polymer through a mirror and travels the whole path of
the cross-sectional pattern. Then the platform moves down at an
initially defined depth, and then the printing cycle repeats, build-
ing the part layer by layer, until the object is fully formed [72]. The
resin mixture can be combined with photoinitiator and UV absorber
components to adjust the depth of polymerization [73]. This is one
of the quality determinants of the finished product along with laser
power, scan speed and UV exposure time [74]. One of SLA’s main
advantages over the existing 3D printing techniques is its high res-
olution printing, which is determined by the number of applied
photons. One photon is usually emitted to trigger polymerization.
A resolution higher than 100 microns is possible to achieve as an
effect of localized polymerization initiation. Formlabs Form2 SLA
3D printer actually has a 25 microns layer thickness (i.e. resolution)
[75]. With such high resolution printing, sophisticated objects can
be created out of a SLA 3D printer. Since SLA mechanism does not
utilize any nozzle, clogging is not a problem. However, setting up
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 3. The Additive Manufacturing Process Flow [62].
an SLA-based additive manufacturing system has hindered major
fabrication industries due to high cost [70,2].
3.3. Digital light processing (DLP)
Digital Light Processing (DLP) is another vat polymerization
technique quite similar to SLA, except that instead of using scanning
laser beam to solidify a layer of resin, a digital mask is projected to
create the pattern. This is illustrated in Fig. 7. SLA’s resolution can
be defined by the spot size created by the laser. Since DLP uses
a projected digital image, it is the pixel size that characterizes its
resolution. Technically, DLP can print an object with lesser time
compared to SLA since each layer is exposed entirely all at once by
the projected pattern rather than meticulously scanned by a laser.
This is advantageous when simultaneously printing multiple large
compact objects with less detail. However, when printing objects
with smaller details, a projection lens that focuses light on certain
area of the build platform is necessary to retain print resolution.
On the other hand, SLA can generally achieve higher resolution and
better surface finish than DLP [76].
3.4. Selective layer sintering (SLS)
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) is a type of Powder Bed Fusion
(PBF) wherein a bed of powder polymer, resin or metal is targeted
partially (sintering) or fully (melting) by a high-power directional
heating source such as laser that result to a solidified layer of fused
powder [70]. As shown in Fig. 8, an SLS setup usually is composed of
the powder reserve chamber and the printing chamber. Both cham-
bers are initially heated up to certain temperature just below the
melting point of the material. A high power X-Y axis laser beam is
emitted onto the preheated powder surface of the printing cham-
ber which then sinters a two-dimensional pattern [77]. The printing
chamber moves down to a predefined depth (layer height) while
47
the reserve chamber moves up, exposing some of the powder on
the printing level. The leveling drum rolls the exposed powders
from the top of the reserve chamber to the void of the topmost
part of the printing chamber, applying another layer of fresh pow-
der on the printing surface. This process is repeated until the last
layer has been printed. After printing, the printing chamber con-
tains the solidified object surrounded by powder cake. The powder
cake should be shaken off to reveal the printed item [8]. The fac-
tors that define the quality of an SLS print are powder particle size,
laser power, scan spacing and scan speed [78]. Overhanging layers
in the design of an object are a challenge for both SLA and FDM
because it requires the use of support structures. SLS, on the other
hand, does not need structural support since the powder cake acts
as support for the printed item; allowing complicated objects to be
printed with ease. The sintering mechanism of SLS allows only ther-
moplastic polymers such as polycaprolactone (PCL) and polyamide
(PLA), ceramics and metals to be printed; taking into consideration
the complex consolidation behavior and molecular diffusion pro-
cess. The surface smoothness of a print of an SLA is better than SLS.
Also, setting up an SLS machine requires high cost due to the use
of expensive high-power heating sources such as laser or electron
beam for materials with high melting temperature [79,80].
3.5. Three-dimensional printing (3DP)
Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP) is another type of Powder Bed
Fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing technology developed at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology [81]. It is quite similar to
SLS except that in 3DP, a liquid binding material is deposited via
a binding jet over the powder bed, which serves as a substrate, to
bind the powder particles together to create the two-dimensional
shape of the layer. A fresh layer of powder is rolled over the pre-
vious layer after a lowering mechanism carries down the already
printed layers. This process is repeated until the last layer has been
48 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67

Fig. 4. (a) Overview of types of monomer/polymer materials, mechanisms and additive manufacturing methods [13]. (b) Overview of single-step AM processing principles
for polymer materials [60].

printed. The quality of the final product depends on powder par-
ticle size, viscosity of the binder, binder-powder interaction and
the speed of the binder deposition [82]. While this technology suf-
fers from poor surface quality, limited build volume and porosity of
the final product, the advantages of this technique are its low-cost
setup, multi-material capability and ambient processing environ-
ment [68,70].
3.6. Laminated object manufacturing (LOM)
waste roll. The platform moves down to prepare for the next layer.
The process repeats until the object is formed [68,83]. Designs with
overhangs are not a problem since the product made by LOM is self-
supporting However, it is time consuming to detach the unwanted
material from complex printed objects because the non-part area
is greatly cross-hatched by laser even though its purpose is to ease
the removal of the part. LOM is known to have poor to average
finish and the resolution, especially the accuracy of the z-axis, is
dependent on the thickness of the sheet used and the adhesion
pressure [84,2].

Laminated Object Manufacturing is widely used in the industry

as a rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing technique. As
illustrated in Fig. 9, the printing cycle generally consists of rolling
out a heat-activated sheet material which is then laminated onto a
substrate via the heat roller; the layer is formed by laser-cutting the
pattern and cross-hatches the non-part area to be disposed to the
3.7. PolyJet technology
PolyJet is considered an advanced inkjet technology where
instead of using ink, multiple print nozzles accurately spray tiny
droplets of liquid photopolymer or other liquid materials, hence,
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 5. FDM setup [243].
the name poly jet. A UV light instantly cures the droplets creating
ultra-thin layers on the build platform to form the 3D object. Com-
plex prints require support, which should be removed manually.
The post curing of the final product is unnecessary. Its advantages
include high resolution and simultaneous multi-material printing.
It can also incorporate a selection of colors to produce multi-colored
final product [85,86].
4. ASTM and ISO standards for mechanical testing of
polymers
The ASTM Standards for testing of plastics include ASTM D638
for tensile test, the test specimens are dumbbell-shaped, and the
properties usually obtained include tensile strength, yield strength,
elongation at yield, elongation at break, and modulus of elasticity
[87]. ASTM D412 is for the tensile test of vulcanized rubber and
thermoplastic elastomers [88]. ASTM D882 covers the tensile test
for thin plastic sheeting [89]. Also, ASTM D3039 covers the ten-
sile properties of polymer matrix composite materials, specifically
those reinforced by high-modulus fibers [90]. The International
Organization for Standardization developed the ISO 527 for the
tensile characterization of plastics [91,92]. Further, ISO 37 covers a
method for obtaining the tensile properties of thermoplastic as well
as vulcanized rubbers [93]. ASTM D790 covers the determination
of flexural properties including the flexural strength and flexural
Fig. 7. Selective exposure to light by a laser vs. a projector [76].
49
Fig. 6. SLA setup [72].
modulus of plastic materials. It has two procedures, Procedure A
is for materials that break at small deflections, while Procedure B
is for materials that break at large deflections [94]. ISO 178 cov-
ers the method for determining the flexural properties of rigid and
semi-rigid plastics, similarly the flexural strength, flexural modulus
parameters may be obtained using this standard [95].
ASTM D1938 covers the standard for the determination of the
tear propagation resistance of a plastic film or sheeting of com-
parable thickness. The specimen is cut with two trouser legs. This
method is not applicable for brittle plastics [96]. ISO has ISO 34-
2:2015, referring to tear test standards for small sample pieces [97]
and ISO 34-1:2010 for angle, crescent and trouser tear test pieces
[98].
ASTM D695 covers the compressive test of rigid plastics, and the
properties obtained include the compressive strength, modulus of
elasticity, yield stress, deformation beyond yield point. The strain
rates employed are relatively low [99]. ISO 604 is the corresponding
test standard by ISO [100].
ASTM D256 (for Izod Impact Test) and ASTM D6110 (for
Charpy Impact Test) are methods to measure the impact resis-
tance of notched plastic specimens using pendulum-type hammers
[101,102]. ISO also has similar standards for notched impact test
specimens for Izod and Charpy Impact tests [103–105].
50 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 8. SLS setup [72].
ASTM E384 covers the determination of microindentation hard-
ness of materials (including plastics) based on the Knoop and
Vickers hardness scales. This standard also includes calibration of
the machines and test blocks of both tests [106]. ASTM D2240, for
the Shore Durometer Hardness test standard, covers the relative
hardness of soft materials, usually elastomers. This test measures
the depth of penetration of an indenter into the material under
specified load (force) and time [107]. ASTM D785 covers the test
methods for the Rockwell Hardness Test. This method measures
the indention hardness of plastics by measuring the depth of inden-
tation of an indenter in a material. Indenters are usually round
hardened steel balls of specific diameters [108]. ISO has similar
standards for the Rockwell Hardness Test, namely, ISO 2039-1
wherein the method consists of forcing a hardened steel ball under
a certain load onto the surface of a sample, and then the depth
of indentation is measured; and ISO2039-2 wherein the Rockwell
hardness number is derived from the net increase in depth of inden-
tation as the load on an indenter is increased using major and minor
loads [109,110].
ASTM D2990 covers the test methods for tensile, compression
and flexural creep analysis, as well as the creep rupture in plas-
tics. The creep modulus and creep strain are the usual parameters
measured in this test. Creep is affected by the amount of the load,
load application time, and temperature. The test method measures
the strain on a sample after the application of load [111]. ISO has
similar standards for Tensile and Flexural Creep Test [112,113].
ASTM D7791 covers the measurement of fatigue properties of
plastic materials under uniaxial loading. Generally, universal test-
ing machines are used for this method. Here, the specimen is
loaded below the proportional limits of the material [114]. ASTM
D3479 covers the test method for tension fatigue of polymer matrix
composite materials [115]. On the other hand, ISO 13003 is the
ISO standard of the fatigue test of fiber-reinforced plastics [116].
Additionally, ASTM D7774 covers the fatigue properties of plastic
materials under bending. Both three-point and Four-point bending
procedures may be used for this method [117].
ASTM D5592 covers the material properties of polymeric mate-
rials needed in engineering design. The standard also covers
strength requirements during practical application of plastics and
other environmental considerations during the material’s lifetime.
Overdesign will also be avoided when this standard is followed
[118]. Other related standards also regarding Tolerances, Devia-
tions and Fits such as the ISO 286-1:2010 are important in ensuring
the dimensions of tested parts [119]. ASTM E691 covers the tech-
niques for conducting an interlaboratory study of a test method
[120].
5. Mechanical properties of 3D-printed polymers
This part summarizes research works aimed at understand-
ing the mechanical properties of additively manufactured parts.
For utilization of 3D printed parts in real world applications, its
strength in all aspects should be similar to the part that it will
replace, or to those produced by conventional processing methods
(e.g. injection molding) [121,9]. It should be noted that the mechan-
ical properties of additive manufactured parts can be affected by
both the unprinted material properties and the manufacturing
method [122]. Moreover, polymers with defined functional and
mechanical properties also have to be developed [123]. Usually,
reinforcements/fillers are incorporated in polymers to enhance
their mechanical properties [124], or by postprocessing [125,126].
Layered processing of polymeric materials, as is the case for 3D
printing, has many issues that limit its applications. These issues
must be addressed for additively manufactured parts to have broad
adoption in rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing, i.e. to
employ 3D printing for the manufacture of high quality and reliable
end-use parts [58].
Among others, mechanical anisotropy poses the largest problem
in additively manufactured parts. Fused Deposition Modelling has
this problem due to its layer size (i.e. thickness, width or diameter).
Consequently, layer thickness [127] raster angle [128–132,127], air
gap [128], trajectory of the printer [133], filament orientation and
build direction [129,130,128] have drawn a lot of interest from 3d
printer manufacturers as well as those involved in the development
of printing materials [128,131,127,71,134,135,132,136,129,130].
There is large part-to-part and intra-part variations with FDM.
The mechanical anisotropy for FDM is the largest, at ∼50%, among
all additive manufacturing techniques [55]. For Stereolithogra-
phy, factors that could affect the mechanical property of the parts
include post-processing such as curing in various wavelengths
[126], annealing under different temperatures [125,126] and axis
resolution/layer thickness [137,138]. The mechanical anisotropy
for SLA is very low, ∼1% [55]. For SLS, several printing parameters
would also affect the density and mechanical properties of printed
parts, such as energy density/laser power, scan spacing, laser beam
speed, and part orientation [139,140,141,55]. Additionally, other
factors influencing the mechanical property of SLS parts include
feedstock uniformity, microstructure evolution due to the SLS pro-
cess, and the ability of SLS machines to form parts without thermal
degradation of the powder [142]. Also, layer thickness, refresh rate,
part bed temperature and hatch pattern also affects the mechani-
cal properties of SLS-printed parts [143]. The use of virgin and used
powders have an effect on the mechanical properties of compo-
nents [144–146]. The mechanical anisotropy for SLS is relatively
low, ∼10% [55]. For Polyjet, the mechanical anisotropy is also low,
∼2% [55]. The very low anisotropy of Polyjet- and SLA-printed parts
is because the local volume is more densely packed by printed liq-
uids, and also these methods have lower curing energies causing
the entire volume to be cured uniformly [55].
A good design of 3D printed part is to have excellent quality with
minimal anisotropy. Whenever possible, 3D-printed part designers
should align the load/stresses in a part with the strongest orienta-
tion of the material. These may be obtained if raw materials with
tunable mechanical properties become available [31].
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 9. Schematic of LOM [244].
Table 1 summarizes the commonly used materials in Addi-
tive Manufacturing of polymers. The table presents valuable
information regarding the mechanical properties of commercially-
available materials from 3d-printer manufacturers. Tangoblack
from Stratasys shows the lowest tensile strength of 2 MPa and the
highest strength could be seen for the PAEK and PEEK materials
which have tensile strengths of 90 MPa. Most materials though have
strengths in the range of 30–40 MPa. The lower strength of the Tan-
goblack materials could be compensated by its excellent elongation
to failure value of ∼50%. Most materials though have elongation
to failure range of 5–10%. Stiffness values range from 1 to 2 GPa
for most materials. Additionally, it can be observed from the data
that the thermosetting photopolymers used by stereolithography
and Polyjet have lower deflection temperatures compared with the
thermoplastics used by selective laser sintering and fused deposi-
tion modelling. From these data, part designers can choose which
material to use (and therefore printing technology) for a particular
application. One material can be superior in one aspect, but could
be inferior in another [55].
There are several studies reporting the mechanical properties
of 3D-printed nanocomposites [4,125,147–150]. Other important
materials include review papers focusing on the properties of
traditionally-manufactured nanocomposites [124,151,2]. Several
studies will be reported under each AM technique below.
5.1. Fused filament fabrication (fused deposition modelling)
5.1.1. Mechanical properties
ASTM standards have been widely adopted by research groups
in the conduct of their mechanical tests, for example ASTM D638
for tensile tests has been followed by almost all the research
groups surveyed [129,128,152,153]. However, some groups fol-
lowed ASTM D3039 due to problem concerning sample geometry
in the ASTM D638 standard, which tends to make the sample fail
prematurely especially at the radiused corners [128,127], as seen
in Fig. 10. Another group used ISO 527-2 [133].
Most of the reports focus on yield strength, ultimate strength
[129,130], elasticity [129,130] and elongation at break [129,130] of
the printed components and how they are affected by the process
parameters mentioned above [71,134,129,130,136,154,128,155].
51
Most literatures reported that the mechanical properties depend
on the printing parameters [135,136,128,71,134,129,130,154,156].
The best tensile properties are obtained when filaments are ori-
ented longitudinally and parallel to the loading direction, and
the worst tensile properties are obtained when the samples are
loaded along the build direction due to weak interlayer bonding
[129,130,128,157].
Raster orientation equates to varying mechanical behaviours
wherein the ultimate strength for the PLA sample was the largest
for the 45◦ raster angle compared with the 0◦ and 90◦ raster angles
[129], similarly for PEEK, the largest strength was observed for the
0◦ raster angle [158], while for the ABS sample the largest ultimate
strength was observed for the 0◦ raster angle compared with the
45◦ and 90◦ raster angles [130,135,159]. It was also statistically
demonstrated that raster orientation largely affects the mechani-
cal properties for ABS parts [127]. Various raster angle orientations
(0◦ , 90◦ , 0◦ /90◦ , 45◦ /−45◦ ) for ABS samples were reported, and the
samples with 0◦ raster angle showed the highest tensile strength,
while samples with 90◦ showed the weakest tensile strength. In
the latter case, the loads were being carried only by the bonding
between the fibers [128]. Large and varied amounts of anisotropy
in ABS and Polycarbonate FDM-printed tensile samples with var-
ious build and raster orientations have been found [160,157]. The
ABS material is weaker when loaded in the transverse direction
compared with the extrusion direction [161]. Further, depending
on raster orientation, samples have just 10% to 73% of the strength
of the samples produced by injection molding.
Another group statistically demonstrated that layer thickness
largely affects the mechanical properties. Specifically, specimens
printed with a layer thickness of 0.2 mm showed higher stiffness
and ultimate tensile strength compared with specimens printed
with a layer thickness of 0.4 mm [127]. Air gap has been defined as
the space between the roads/rasters, shown in Fig. 10 [128]. Zero air
gap means that the roads just touch; a positive gap means the roads
do not touch; and a negative gap means that two roads overlap. The
−0.003 air gap (more dense) shows higher tensile strength com-
pared with the zero air gap [128], also an air gap smaller than this
value is not advisable as there will be excess material build up at the
nozzle of the 3d printer, and on the part being printed [128]. The
modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of printed rectangular
52 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67

Fig. 10. a) Air gaps within the ASTM D638 sample; b) Premature shear failure of ASTM D638 standard test specimens [128].

Table 1
Overview of 3D printing materials [55].

Supplier/Process Material Density Tensile Tensile Elongation to HDT (◦ C at

(g/cm3 ) Strength (MPa) Modulus (GPa) Failure (%) 0.45 MPa)

3D systems/SLA Polypropylene-like, Visijet Flex 1.19 38 1.6 16 61

3D systems/SLA ABS-like, Visijet Impact 1.18 48 2.6 14 47
3D systems/SLA Polycarbonate-like, Visijet Clear 1.17 52 2.6 6 51
3D systems/SLA High temp, Visijet High Temp 1.23 66 3.4 6 130
EOS/SLS General purpose nylon, PA2200 0.93 48 1.7 24 163
EOS/SLS Biocompatible nylon, PA2221 0.93 44 1.6 10 157
EOS/SLS Glass bead filled nylon, PA3200GF 1.22 51 3.2 9 166
EOS/SLS Aluminum filled nylon, Alumide 1.36 48 3.8 4 169
EOS/SLS Polyaryletherketone, PEEK HP3 1.32 90 4.2 2.8 165
Stratasys/FDM ABS, M30 1.09 26 2.2 2 96
Stratasys/FDM PC-ABS 1.11 28 1.7 5 110
Stratasys/FDM PC-ABS 1.14 30 2 2.5 138
Stratasys/FDM PPSF/PPSU 1.33 55 2.1 3 188
Stratasys/FDM PEI, Ultem 9065 1.21 33 2.3 2.2 153
Stratasys/Polyjet Tangoblack FLX973 1.14 2 0.1 50 45
Stratasys/Polyjet Durus RGD430 1.16 25 1 40 40
Stratasys/Polyjet Veroclear RGD810 1.18 50 2.2 10 45
Stratasys/Polyjet DABS RGD5160 1.17 55 2.6 25 58
Stratasys/Polyjet High Temp RGD525 1.18 70 3.2 10 63

samples are similar with those tested for the unextruded filament.
Also, the same group observed that sample’s quality depend on the
trajectory and correct bed levelling of the printer [133]. It was also
found out that FDM-printed ABS samples demonstrated a lower
rate of increase in ultimate tensile strength after 12 layers inde-
pendent of raster orientation [130], this could be due to the size
effect of the samples [132]. Filament tensile tests were also carried
out for unextruded PLA filaments [129], as well as for extruded and
unextruded PLA filaments [133]. It was observed that the PLA fil-
ament has similar mechanical properties with printed specimen,
and further made the conclusion that waste PLA material which
has already been 3d-printed may be recycled for further 3d printing
[129,133].
Additionally, some 3d-printing guidelines were suggested,
namely: 1) Designing and building the parts so that tensile loads
will be carried axially along the fibers; 2) Consider that stress con-
centrations occur at radiused corners during tensile test; 3) Use a Fig. 11. Stress vs. strain curve measured at 77 K on ABS 3D printed anisotropic and
negative air gap to increase the strength; 4) Consider bead width, isotropic sample [165].
5) Consider the effect of build orientation on part accuracy; and 6)
Keep in mind that 3d-printed parts are weaker under tension than when compared to an anisotropic sample (0.63 MPa). The same
in compression [128]. large difference was observed for the modulus [165]. Fig. 11 also
Understanding the mechanical behavior of 3D-printed parts at shows a brittle behavior of the anisotropic ABS sample (i.e. sudden
cryogenic temperatures is also important because space applica- failure).
tions, where temperatures in the International Space Station range For PLA samples under 3-point bending test, the 0◦ raster angle
from −157 ◦ C to 121 ◦ C [162], are also a possibility in the near was the strongest compared with the 45◦ and 90◦ raster angles
future [41,42]. When the tensile properties of ABS at room temper- [129]. For PEEK samples with 0◦ , 90◦ and 0◦ /90◦ raster angles, the
ature, 77 K (liquid nitrogen temperature) and 4.2 K (liquid helium bending strength was the highest at 0◦ raster angle [158]. For ABS
temperature) were compared, the Young’s modulus at the cryo- parts, the flexural yield strength of ABS parts is the largest in sam-
genic temperatures were higher than that at room temperature. ples with 0◦ raster orientation [135].
However, the Ultimate Tensile Strength at cryogenic temperatures For ABS parts under compression, the sample with a trans-
were somehow lower compared with the sample tested at room verse build direction has a lower strength when compared with
temperature [163]. The same behaviors were observed for Nylon the sample having the axial build direction, and the compressive
when tested at RT and 77 K [164]. For ABS samples heated above strength of the specimen is 80% to 90% of the injection molded
the glass transition temperature (in order to make it isotropic), part [128]. Similar observations were found by Lee et al. [155].
researchers observed a higher ultimate tensile strength of 16.1 MPa, Ziemian et al. observed that ABS specimens with 45◦ raster ori-
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 12. Surface quality changing over time, 0.2 mm layer-high (a) sample wall, (b) sample bottom [169].
entation are weaker than the specimens printed with other raster
orientations [135]. In order to highlight anisotropy induced in
3d-printed samples with different building orientation under com-
pression, Guessasma et al. applied large compressive loads to ABS
samples having different build orientations [132]. The 3D-printed
ABS samples demonstrated significant anisotropic behavior under
compressive load due to lateral damage extension. Inter-filament
debonding occurred during loading. Their group also evaluated the
size effect of samples on its mechanical property. Samples with
different sizes from 5 mm to 40 mm were printed with a raster
angle of 0◦ . The results showed minor size effect on the elastic
modulus of the samples [132]. On the other hand, for PEEK mate-
rials, when the compressive test was conducted at 0◦ and 0◦ /90◦
raster angles, compressive strength was the highest at 0◦ raster
angle [158]. Dinwiddie et al. used infrared imaging to monitor the
temperature of the FDM technique, and observed that there is a
large temperature difference between layers which may cause vari-
ation in bond strength between layers, which directly affects the
mechanical properties of the printed part. Further, they concluded
that better bonding between layers result if the preceding layer
stays longer above its Tg . [166].
When the compressive properties of ABS at room temperature,
77 K (liquid nitrogen temperature) and 4.2 K (liquid helium tem-
perature) were compared, both the modulus and ultimate tensile
strength at the cryogenic temperatures were higher than that at
room temperature [163].
For PEEK having 0◦ , 90◦ and 0◦ /90◦ raster angles and subjected
to impact loading, the impact strength was the highest at 0◦ raster
53
angle [158]. Also, the absorbed energy was the highest for the ABS
sample with 0◦ raster orientation, and lowest for ABS specimen
with 90◦ raster orientation [135].
Using ASTM D7791, the fatigue behavior of samples with 0◦ , 45◦
and 90◦ raster angles was measured by Letcher et al. The sample
with the 90◦ raster angle was the least resistant. The specimen with
the 45◦ raster angle has the highest fatigue endurance limit [129].
Another group observed that the sample with +45◦ /−45◦ raster
orientation showed the highest number of cycles, while the sam-
ple with the 45◦ raster orientation showed the smallest number of
cycles. The group also used low frequency (0.25 Hz) for the fatigue
test in order to prevent the sample from heating [135,159]. Follow-
ing ASTM D2990, the dependence of creep displacement on slice
height, air gap, raster fill angle, print direction, bead width and
number of shells has also been observed for PC-ABS blend [167].
Annealing thermal cycle on FDM 3D-printed ABS material showed
a decrease in strength, however no effect on the Young’s modulus
was observed [161].
For practical applications, part designers could use the weakest
properties of the weakest orientation as a conservative strength
value for design safety factor, but it would be best if the rela-
tionships of processing parameters and mechanical properties can
be fully understood, thereby utilizing additive manufacturing to
enable highly optimized material parts. Therefore, having a good
understanding of the printing parameters which have a direct effect
on the mechanical anisotropy and mechanical strength in addi-
tively manufactured polymeric parts, especially in the case of Fused
Deposition Modelling, could lead to fully maximizing the adoption
54 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 13. a) Different build orientations and sub-build orientations; b) Stress-Strain curves of the specimens with different build and sub-build orientations [122].
Fig. 14. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of a) mechanically-notched sample, b) SLA-notched samples [173].
of additively manufactured parts for rapid prototyping and rapid
manufacturing [135].
5.1.2. FDM nanocomposites
For FDM-printed nanocomposites, the tensile properties of
Kevlar fiber-reinforced components have been investigated. The
researchers varied the volume fraction of fibers in the composite
material, namely, 4.04%, 8.08% and 10.1%. The mechanical prop-
erties, i.e. ultimate tensile strength, ultimate tensile strain, and
Young’s modulus, also increased as the volume of fiber reinforce-
ment increased. The group also provided a method to estimate
the mechanical properties of the polymer/fiber composite using
an Average Stiffness Method [152].
5.1.3. FDM post-processing
Post-processing is sometimes applied to printed parts to fur-
ther enhance the mechanical strength of materials. Poor layer
adhesion and layer delamination is the biggest challenge of FDM
printed materials. Thus post-processing to improve layer adhesion
strength is important. Zhang [147] demonstrated that microwave
treatment on FDM printed ABS/CNT nanocomposites helps to fuse
layers together, and therefore layer adhesion becomes stronger.
Microwave irradiation triggers vigorous response of CNT, which
generates enough heat to locally melt ABS molecules surround-
ing CNT in a short time, thus leading to the fusion of adjacent ABS
layers. Other post-processing techniques aims at surface finish-
ing includes sanding, polishing, priming & painting and etc. [168].
Vapor-smoothing has been reported as an effective strategy to pol-
ish layered patterns on 3D printed material surface. For example,
acetone vapor polishing was applied to smooth 3D printed ABS to
be used as negative mold which requires high surface smoothness,
as shown in Fig. 12. After 12 min of polishing, all boundaries disap-
pear and a smooth finish can be seen. However, increasing polishing
time would dissolve the ABS material which caused the formation
of pores/pits on the surface, and eventually increased the roughness
of the surface. In the vapor polishing process, vapor temperature,
polishing time and vapor pressure should be carefully controlled
[169].
Shaffer et al. developed a method to improve the interlayer
adhesion between the layers by exposing 3D-printed copolymer
blends, using radiation specific sensitizers, to ionizing radiation.
This process increased the toughness and strength, as well as
reduced the anisotropy of the part [170].
In its website, 3D Hubs details several post-processing methods
for FDM-printed parts, namely: Support Removal, Sanding, Cold
welding, Gap filling, Polishing, Priming & painting, Vapor smooth-
ing, Dipping, Epoxy coating, and Metal plating [171].
5.2. Stereolithography
5.2.1. Mechanical properties
ASTM standards have also been adopted in the conduct of tests
for SLA-printed parts, for example ASTM D638 for tensile tests
has been followed by almost all the research groups reviewed in
this report. The tensile properties of a commercial photo-curable
resin with various build orientations have been observed, and is
shown in Fig. 13 a and b. The build orientations include flat and
edge, and each one has 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ sub-build orientations. The
tensile properties of the specimen with edge build orientation are
slightly better compared with the flat build orientation, and that in
both cases, the 45◦ sub-build orientations also have slightly better
properties than the 0◦ and 90◦ sub-build orientations [122]. Sim-
ilar observations were found by other groups in that the effect of
build orientation is quite small [172,173], which shows that these
parts are broadly isotropic [122,172,173]. Layer thickness has more
effect on part strength compared with printing orientation. Further,
tensile strength increases when the layer thickness increases, on
contrary, the impact strength and flexural strength decreases when
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 15. Effect of Clear V2 Post-Cure Temperature on Ultimate Tensile Strength [126].
Fig. 16. a) Effect of Post-Cure Wavelength on the Tensile Strength of a commercially-available resin by Formlabs [126]; b) Stress-strain curves of specimens post-cured at
various period [122].
the layer thickness increases [138]. This is because of the layered
nature of the 3D-printed material and its effect on the microscopic
mechanism of fracture within the part. The low anisotropy and rel-
atively good strength of SLA-printed parts is because of the good
connection by polymerization of the new layer with the prior layer
[13].
The impact resistance of commercially-available photo curable
resins with different methods of notch application were investi-
gated, and the SEM images are shown in Fig. 14. The measured
impact resistance of mechanically-manufactured notch (Fig. 14a) is
lower compared with the build-manufactured notch (Fig. 14b). This
is an important observation for applications involving machined
parts undergoing grinding, turning, drilling, etc. [173].
The effect of ageing (24-day cycle) on the tensile properties of a
commercially-available epoxy resin was investigated. The mechan-
ical properties such as ultimate tensile strength, stiffness, flexural
modulus, and flexural strength increased, on the other hand, the
impact resistance and elongation at break decreased because the
material has become stiffer and thus more brittle due to the ageing
cycle [174].
A micro-SLA system intended to be used for micro-mechanical
systems and biomedical engineering application which has reso-
lutions of up to 5–10 ␮m was devised by Stampfl et al. [175], and
hybrid solgel materials, elastomers and hydrogels were tested. The
same group produced a biodegradable photo curable resin by using
acrylate modified gelatine as crosslinker (enzymatic mechanisms).
55
Using hydroxyapatite as filler material increased the stiffness of
the printed part [123]. Depending on the material, a material
modulus from 0.1 MPa to 8000 MPa was possible. Further, by vary-
ing the printing parameters (e.g. degree of crosslinking, the base
monomers and cross-linkers used, and the amount of particulate
fillers), the functional and mechanical properties of the 3d printed
part can also be varied [123,175].
Residual stresses are developed due to the thermal expansion
or contraction during polymerization. These residual stresses cer-
tainly influence the strength of 3D-printed parts via SLA. Proper
material selection, exposure protocol and heating of resin baths
may be observed in order to control the mechanical properties of
materials [13].
5.2.2. SLA nanocomposites
Adding graphene oxides (GOs) to a commercial resin increased
its tensile strength and elongation. The reason for this increase
in ductility is due to the increase of crystallinity of GO rein-
forced polymer parts [148]. Also, adding nano SiO2 gives significant
increase in tensile strength and stiffness. Nanocomposites with
SiO2 also has the fastest curing speed and highest printing accu-
racy, compared with those having montmorillonite and attpulgite.
Further, montmorillonite and attapulgite nanocomposistes exhib-
ited a shear thinning behavior unlike the SiO2 nanocomposite
[149]. The Charpy impact strength and the elongation at break
increased with the addition of Core-Shell-Particles [176]. Also, the
56 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 17. a) Actual fracture of a 0◦ oriented test specimen; b) Actual fracture of a 90◦ oriented test specimen [139].
Fig. 18. IR-camera temperature measurements during fatigue testing [194].
mechanical properties of the SLA-printed parts improved with the
addition of surface-treated inorganic fillers or by adding a solution
containing preformed polymer with better mechanical properties
[177]. Another group observed that the mechanical properties of
photo-curable resins can be increased with the addition of cellulose
nanocrystals (CNCs), and that the processability of the materials is
not affected with low nanofiller concentrations. The modulus and
tensile strength both increased with increasing CNC content. Also,
strength could be increased with higher level of dispersion and
intimate contact of the CNCs with the photo-curable resin matrix
[178].
5.2.3. SLA post-processing
For SLA printing, uncured resin, either between layers or on
the surface, acts as weak points and thus compromises mechanical
properties. Zguris reported that the UV post-curing of SLA printed
resin can significantly improve the mechanical strength due to the
complete curing of remaining resin, as shown in Fig. 15. It was also
found that the largest property enhancement is under the same
wavelength of UV light as that used in SLA printer [126], shown in
Fig. 15.
The effect on strength and stiffness of post-cured SLA-printed
parts using varying wavelengths and temperatures during curing
has been observed. Using a 405 nm wavelength light source pro-
duces higher mechanical properties compared with using a lower
wavelength of light source. Additionally, post-curing at higher tem-
peratures would also lead to shorter curing time, resulting in higher
mechanical properties [126].
The tensile strength has shown to improve with the increase
of UV post-curing period [122,126], as shown in Fig. 16a [126]
and b [122]. On the other hand, another group observed that post-
cure time using oven has little effect on the stiffness and strength
[172]. These differences make it necessary to standardize the cur-
ing method, curing times, intensity of laser or temperature level,
depending on the post curing method. The tensile modulus and heat
deflection are affected by different post-cure conditions in SLA such
as thermal, ultra-sound and ultra-violet post-curing methods. The
flexural modulus and impact strength, on the other hand, shows
little variation. The combination of ultra-sound curing and thermal
curing actually produces better mechanical properties. Generally, a
combination of post-cure methods is advised over a single method.
Surprisingly, using the UV post-cure method produces the low-
est mechanical properties [179]. Hague et al. also reported that
varying the post-curing methodology would affect the mechanical
properties of printed parts [173].
A commercially-available photo-curable resin, Somos 7110, was
used to study the thermo-mechanical and fracture behaviors, and
post-cured using UV, conventional heating and microwave. Brittle
fracture occurred in green samples (i.e. as-produced, without any
post-processing), although plastic deformation was also present
in some regions of green samples. Samples by post-cured con-
ventional heating technique showed better mechanical properties
compared with UV and microwave techniques. Conventional heat-
ing of the samples increased the degree of curing and density of
cross-linking, which in turn produced a uniform stress distribu-
tion during tensile test, as well as increase in surface energy and
critical flaw size [180]. A high curing rate and precise SLA printing
could be achieved for a photo-curable resin with complex geome-
tries and which has shape memory behavior, also the strength of
3d-printed components was similar to industrial Shape Memory
Polymers [181]. For medical applications, one study used SLA-
printed poly(trimethylene carbonate), PTMC, as a scaffolding for
annulus fibrosus tissue repair. It was observed that the mechanical
properties of the PTMC scaffolding are similar with the strength of
the native tissue, which is very important for tissue implantation.
Specifically, the compressive modulus increased at least two times
the initial value after 14 days of static culture [182]. By controlled
curing, it is possible to produce SLA-printed polymeric samples
with gradient mechanical properties (i.e. varying along its length).
This observation is important for parts requiring different mechan-
ical properties along different portions, i.e. interface connections
of parts with different properties can be eliminated. It was actu-
ally possible to increase the stiffness of the 3d printed material
by a factor of 10 [183]. In the case of 3D scaffolds for bone tissue
engineering, its compressive strength increased exponentially with
decreasing pore size, similarly the compressive modulus showed an
increase with decreasing pore sizes [156].
The mechanical properties (i.e. tensile strength and stiff-
ness) of GO-reinforced commercially-available photo-curable resin
decreased for both the unannealed sample and the sample annealed
at 50 ◦ C, on the other hand, samples annealed at 100 ◦ C exhibited
an increase in mechanical properties [125].
The Photocentric company has several UV photo curable resins
for SLA and DLP printers. They also suggest for their resins to
have at least 2 h of UV exposure (36 W) so that printed parts will
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 19. Compressive stiffness of different scaffold designs; a) Fabricated scaffolds; b) Stiffness of scaffolds [202].
have the highest strength. UV exposure below 2 h will have lower
strength [184]. Another commercial resin vendor, Somos, uses UV
postcure, thermal postcure, and also a combination of UV and
thermal postcures for their resins to have optimal thermal, mechan-
ical and electrical properties [185]. Formlabs has the Form Wash
and Form Cure technologies. The former washes the part using
isopropyl alcohol for ∼15 min, and the latter heats the part to a
maximum temperature of 80 ◦ C in order to cure the part [186]. 3D
Hubs listed several post-processing methods for SLA-printed parts,
namely, Basic support removal, Sanded support nibs, Wet sanded,
Mineral oil finish, Spray paint (clear UV protective acrylic), Polished
to clear transparent finish [187]. Other post-processing methods
for SLA include surface finishing with sealants, primers, paints or
metallic coatings [13].
5.3. Digital light processing
5.3.1. Mechanical properties
For Digital Light Processing (DLP), the mechanical properties of
the 3D-printed part depend on the build direction. The cause of this
anisotropy is the poor level of polymerization due to the pixilation
of each layer having shadow areas between pixels [188]. Similar
observations regarding anisotropy were reported by Garcia et al.
[189]. The anisotropy observed in DLP can be removed by post-
curing [188].
5.4. Selective laser sintering (SLS)
5.4.1. Mechanical properties
Most of the literatures covered in this study followed ASTM
standards for their tests. Similar with the case of FDM, there is
also significant part-to-part and intra-part variations with parts
printed with SLS. This is because the bond strength of sintered
materials depends on local process conditions, and therefore any
changes in these conditions would cause variations in the mechani-
cal properties of the printed parts, usually the strength and stiffness
are highest in the direction of printing [55]. Nylon samples with a
raster angle of 60◦ has the best mechanical properties when com-
pared with other raster orientations, namely 0◦ 15◦ 30◦ 45◦ 60◦ 75◦
90◦ [131], and thereby showing mechanical anisotropy [131]. The
z-axis (printing orientation) of polyamide would have the lowest
strength [150]. For Nylon samples with different build orientations,
i.e. x, y, z, there is a difference of 16% in strength and 11.2% in mod-
ulus for the different build orientations. The parts built in the x-axis
orientation, which is the orientation parallel to the direction of laser
scanning, has the highest strength and stiffness values. The samples
built in the z-axis orientation showed the lowest strength and stiff-
ness values [141]. Zarringhalam et al. observed that the elongation
at break and tensile strength of parts produced from used powder
was higher than using virgin powder [144], which could be due to
the increase in molecular weight of used powder resulting from the
additional cross-linking [144,142]. The stiffness though were simi-
lar [144]. The supplied Energy Density level has a significant effect
57
on the mechanical properties of the SLS-printed parts. Porous, weak
and anisotropic parts were produced using low Energy Density
levels, on the other hand, isotropic, solid and stronger parts were
produced using high Energy Density levels. It was also suggested
that the minimum Energy Density level should be ∼0.012 J/mm2 .
There is also a difference of fracture behaviors in samples with
different build orientations, i.e. 0◦ and 90◦ . Microstructure obser-
vations revealed that small defects in each of the layers affected
the strengths, and thus, failure could occur at the weakest link, and
eventually would result in a jagged fracture shown in Fig. 17a and
b [139].
The shear-punch strengths of coarse and fine thermoplas-
tic polyurethane elastomer powders were similar with injection
molded parts, however the tensile properties of the coarse powder
was just 1/3 of the strength of samples made from fine powders
and those produced by injection molding [190].
Drummer et al. reported on blending 80 wt.% of polypropylene
with 20 wt.% of polyamide 12, and printed with varied laser power.
They observed that, the mechanical properties of blended poly-
mers were lower compared with those of the pure polymers. Also,
they observed dependence of mechanical properties with respect
to input energy [191]. Their group further reported that the density
of SLS-printed parts showed a maximum at 0.35 J/mm3 , and that it
was lower for lower or higher energy densities. They also correlated
aging with the mechanical properties of SLS-printed components.
The increase in energy density results to the increase in molecular
weight increases and decrease in elongation at break. No effects on
the tensile strength and stiffness were observed [192].
The Degree of Particle Melt increases as the energy input
increases resulting to the increase in elongation at break and ten-
sile strength. There is no significant effect on the stiffness of the
printed part [193]. Other groups also reported on the effect of layer
thickness, refresh rate, part bed temperature and hatch pattern
on mechanical properties of polyamide material were investigated
[143].
Following ISO 604 test standard to determine the effect of
porosity on compressive properties of Nylon. The stiffness of the
specimen was 10% below the injection-moulded part, the ductility
is also lower. On the other hand, the SLS-printed part has a higher
compressive strength compared with the injection-moulded part.
The parts built in the x-axis orientation, which is the orienta-
tion parallel to the direction of laser scanning, has the highest
strength and stiffness values. The samples built in the z-axis ori-
entation showed the lowest strength and stiffness values [140].
The same group investigated the compressive properties of SLS-
printed Nylon samples with different build orientations, i.e. x, y,
and z. There is a difference of 3.4% in strength and 13.4% in modu-
lus for the different build orientations, and that the parts built in the
x-axis orientation, which is the orientation parallel to the direction
of laser scanning, has the highest strength and stiffness values. The
samples built in the z-axis orientation showed the lowest strength
and stiffness values [141].
58 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 20. 3D Sample structure types and dimensions (full, honeycombs, drills, stripes) [204].
Ajoku et al. observed that there is a difference of 9.4% in strength
and 7% in flexural modulus for the different build orientations, i.e. x,
y, and z. They reported that the parts built in the y-axis orientation,
which is the orientation perpendicular to the direction of laser scan-
ning, has the highest flexural strength and flexural modulus values.
The end-of-vector effect was the reason for this. The samples built
in the z-axis orientation showed the lowest strength and stiffness
values. The end-of-vector effect occurs due to the initial burst of
energy that a laser beam directs on a portion of a part at the start of
a laser sinter scan [141]. The ductility, impact strength and flexural
modulus of Nylon varied with the number of builds/prints [146].
This is important for maintaining quality of 3d-printed products
over several build times.
During fatigue tests of Nylon, the temperature of the spec-
imen increased with increasing fatigue cycles as shown in the
IR-camera images in Fig. 18. This increase in temperature, when
it approaches the glass transition temperature, would cause the
material to crystallize which would then cause larger deformations
at the same stress level. It was also observed that material density
affects fatigue life of the parts, i.e. lower density would result to
higher chances for crack initiation to start due to unfused powder
particles (i.e. uncured). Microstructural observation under tension
showed brittle fractures, on the other hand, ductile failure occurred
on the parts tested under tensile fatigue [194].
Following ASTM D256, the impact strength of PA12 has a mean
of 0.754 J/cm2 with a standard deviation of 0.0425 J/cm2 [150]. Izod
impact test results showed that the mechanically notched SLS-
printed Nylon test specimen has a toughness value of 15.6J/m, this
is lower than the SLS-notched specimen which has a toughness
value of 18.5 J/m [140]. This shows that applying the notch in the
CAD filed would improve the impact resistance of the part [173].
However, these values are still much lower than the toughness of
notched specimen produced by injection moulding, which has a
toughness of 60 J/m [195,140], and 150–200 J/m [196].
Under cryogenic conditions, a significant increase was measured
in both tensile strength and stiffness when tested at 77 K compared
with those tested at room temperature [164].
For SLS-printed parts, porosity is one of the major concerns. This
porosity between layers causes weak interfaces, and thus affects
the overall strength of the part. Porosity may arise due to incon-
sistent powder deposition as well as incomplete particle melting
[193,142].
5.4.2. SLS nanocomposites
Also, the strength and modulus of MWNT-reinforced polyamide
nanocomposite were lower compared with unreinforced SLS-
printed polyamide part [150]. This is contrary to the expected result
and also to other reports about nanocomposites wherein nanopar-
ticles/fillers strengthen the 3d-printed part. No explanation though
was given.
5.4.3. SLS post-processing
Zarringhalam et al. subjected the Nylon-based DuraformTM
thermoplastic material to thermal treatment and infiltration with
polymer infiltrants. There is significant increase in Impact Strength
and Tensile strength when the material is heated close to the melt-
ing temperature. However, part distortion and necking occurred
when the temperature was increased very close to the melting
temperature. Also, surface infiltration has minimal effect on the
mechanical properties of DuraformTM [197].
Nelson et al. reported that applying pressure while heating
Polycarbonate parts will not affect the shrinkage of the material.
Heating the polycarbonate near the glass transition temperature
provides uniform shrinkage on the material. Also, the material
becomes more isotropic and shrinkage tends to be smaller as the
green density increases [198].
Shapeways company uses cleaning and dyeing for its Strong
and Flexible Plastic product [199]. 3D Hubs listed several post-
processing methods for SLS-printed parts, namely [200]:
1) Media Tumbled (vibro polish) – polishing is done in media tum-
blers or vibro machines. These devices contain small ceramic
chips responsible for gradually eroding the surface of the part.
2) Dyeing – the part is soaked in a hot color bath.
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 21. a) Orientation of layers; b) Fracture during tensile test.
Fig. 22. Finite element mesh for typical unit cells for the aligned mesostructure with negative fiber to fiber gap, and the skewed mesostructure with positive fiber to fiber
gap [224].
3) Spray paint or lacquering
4) Watertightness – silicones and vinyl acrylates are usually used
to enhance water resistance.
5) Metal coating – metallic materials such as stainless steel, cop-
per, nickel, gold and chrome are being coated on the surface
of the parts in order to improve the mechanical and electrical
properties.
5.5. Three-dimensional printing (3DP)
5.5.1. Mechanical properties
Due to the weak binding of powder particles, the strength of
parts made from this technique is expected to be relatively low
compared with other additive manufacturing methods [2]. Using
PLA powders with low and high molecular weight, and chloroform
as the binder, a higher tensile strength of about 17.40 MPa was
observed for the low molecular weight PLA, than that of the higher
molecular weight PLA sample, which has ∼15.94 MPa [201]. For
tissue engineering purposes [202], different scaffold designs were
created with highly interconnected porous networks and adequate
mechanical properties. Fig. 19 shows the compressive stiffness of
the five designs. For specific applications such as this, it might be
necessary to have mechanical test standards particularly for these
kinds of geometry (in this case, porous).
Laser absorption improved when graphite platelets were added
to PEEK material. Also, the tensile strength increased with the addi-
tion of 5 wt.% graphite platelets. Adding 7.5 wt.% graphite would
increase the stiffness [203].
Following ISO 527:2012, Galeta et al. investigated the effect of
a sample’s structure on the mechanical properties of 3DP-printed
specimens (zp130). The internal geometrical structures of sam-
ples tested include full, honeycomb, drills and stripes, as shown
59
in Fig. 20. Tensile strength at break was calculated as the breaking
force divided by the minimum cross-section area values, also, the
specific tensile strength at break was calculated by dividing tensile
strength at break values by corresponding masses of specimens.
It was found that the specimen with the honeycomb structure
showed the highest tensile strength at break, as well as specific
tensile strength at break [204].
There are actually only a few literature available regarding the
mechanical property assessment of polymer materials 3d printed
using 3DP. Most literatures found for this printing technology are
for ceramic materials, but nonetheless use polymers as binders. For
example one group reported the use of Polyvinyl Alcohol as binder
for 3DP-printed porous titanium powder to assess the dependence
of the mechanical properties on binder content and sintering tem-
perature. They observed that the optimum PVA binder content is
5%, and a sintering temperature of 1370 ◦ C. The test results have
been compared with typical bone properties. For example, the 3DP-
printed samples had a stiffness of 8.15 GPa, fracture strength of
245.7 MPa, compressive modulus of 2.48 GPa, fracture toughness
of 16.9 MPa, and Rockwell hardness of 33.5 (all similar or higher
than that of the bone) [205]. It is ideal for the mechanical properties
obtained from mechanical tests of 3DP-printed polymers to have
similar strength values with original parts or those parts produced
via traditional methods.
For ceramic materials which use polyacrylic acid as the binder,
it was observed that the mechanical properties are dependent on
binder adsorption and mechanical interlocking [206]. Additionally,
it was reported that the green strength of the 3D-printed com-
ponents depends on the strength of the bonds between adjacent
powders, as well as the strength of the bonds between adjacent
layers [206,207]. The 3DP-printed polymers could be responsive
to heat treatment similar to annealing for SLA-printed part, [125],
60 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 23. Material yield point of laser sintered compressive 2D model [140].
or similar with 3DP-printed ceramics [208]. Further, green parts
should be sintered [208,207], or increase the concentration of
binder content [209,207] to improve their strength. These meth-
ods could also be investigated and adopted for 3d printing using
polymer as raw materials. Also, position of the model in the work
space, layer thickness, and ratio of saturation by binding affects
the mechanical properties of printed parts such as roughness,
strength, and accuracy of dimensions) [210]. A very low compres-
sive strength was observed for zp 102 plaster powder. The group
also observed minor anisotropy in the 3d-printed part [210]. Even
though these reports are for ceramic materials, these studies could
be also be used as a guide for the characterization of 3DP-printed
polymeric materials.
5.5.2. 3DP post-processing
For powder-based 3D printing, including SLS and 3DP, large
amount of voids are present between powder particles [207],
weakening materials’ mechanical strength. Sintering is a common
post-processing technique for powder-based 3D printing. Post-
sintering helps to fuse particles together, eliminate the voids and
thus significantly improve mechanical properties. It is worth to
mention that obvious shrinkage often take place during sinter-
ing. However, the shrinkage is well repeatable, thus designing the
CAD model larger than the desired geometry would solve issue
[211,212]. Another technique to remove voids in powder based
printing is infiltration, where a secondary material is melted and
penetrates in the space between powder particles and eventually
fill up voids after solidification. Comparing to sintering, shrinkage in
infiltration is avoided while higher density parts are generated, but
the bulk materials must have a much higher melting temperature
than infiltrant. Besides, the addition of infiltrant in bulk materials
also acts as a second phase, which may lead to inhomogeneous mix-
ing [213,214]. Impens et al. used various infiltrates to post-process
a 3D-printed part. They observed that using epoxy as infiltrate pro-
duces the strongest part, also longer curing time would increase
the strength of the part [215].
5.6. Polyjet
5.6.1. Mechanical properties
Cazon et al. reported about the influence on the strength and
surface properties of Polyjet-printed parts on the printing orien-
tation and post-processing. They reported that the stiffness and
fracture stress were significantly affected by part orientation, but
there was no significant effect on the ultimate tensile strength
[216]. Stansbury et al. also claimed that the isotropicity of the
mechanical properties would depend upon the material and build
orientation [13]. When the effects of part spacing, part orientation
and surface quality on the mechanical properties were investigated,
researchers observed that part spacing along the x axis and surface
quality has no significant influence on the mechanical properties;
part orientation has a slight effect; while the part spacing along the
y axis has the highest effect on the relaxation modulus [217]. Also,
varying the position of the model as well as the printing speed will
not affect the strength characteristics of the printed components
[210], which is similar to the case of SLA. Tested over time of 0, 30,
60, 90 and 120 days, aging would degrade the stiffness, ultimate
tensile strength, strain at yield point, and deformation of Polyjet-
printed parts. The effect of aging was the most significant in the
first 30 days of aging. These results are important for design con-
sidering the lifetime of parts [218]. For fatigue tests of elastomeric
parts, it was observed that the multi-material interface between
elastomer and non-elastomer have similar fatigue life on average.
Although the interface sometimes exhibits premature fatigue fail-
ure. Another observation was that the samples exhibited long life
at low extension ratio, i.e. ∼20% elongation [219]. There are still
very few literature regarding fatigue behavior of additively man-
ufactured parts, and that if these parts were to be used in actual
production, more research is needed [219].
Mueller et al. investigated the effects of printing, testing, and
storage of finished parts on the mechanical and geometric prop-
erties of Polyjet-printed parts. They observed that the number of
intersections between layers and nozzles along the load direction
has the largest effect on the mechanical properties of Polyjet-
printed parts. UV exposure time also has significant effect on the
mechanical properties. Storage time has minimal effect. They also
observed that the machine’s warm-up time and cleanliness of the
nozzle affect the geometric properties or scattering of obtained data
[220].
5.6.2. Polyjet nanocomposite
Sugavaneswaran et al. used Vero Black as reinforcement mate-
rial to Darus White matrix material using a hybrid Polyjet/3DP 3D
printing technique. The reinforcement increased the stiffness of the
resulting composite. Also, the orientation of reinforcement has an
effect on the composite’s stiffness [221].
5.6.3. Polyjet post-processing
Polyjet does not need surface finishing because of its high reso-
lution ∼20 ␮m [13]. Cazon et al. subjected the Polyjet-printed parts
to different finishing operations such as matte or glossy option, and
also used water pressure to remove the support, and also caus-
tic soda bath. They observed that the finishing operations had no
effect on the tensile strength of the 3d-printed parts, but affected
the roughness properties [216]. Also, the glossy surface finish could
improve the fatigue life of Polyjet-printed parts [222].
5.7. Laminated object manufacturing
5.7.1. Mechanical properties
The effect of changing the position of LOM-printed parts in the
machine working area on its tensile and flexural properties has
been investigated, and the printing orientation is shown in Fig. 21.
Tensile test results showed that samples printed in the Pxy ori-
entation showed the highest tensile strength, while the samples
printed in the Lxy orientation showed highest strain at fracture.
The sample in the Pz orientation showed a very low strain at frac-
ture. Flexural test results showed that the Lxy orientation showed
the highest bending strength, while the Pxy orientation showed the
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
Fig. 24. Reasons for pursuing 3d printing [48,232].
highest flexural modulus. Lastly, the Pz direction showed a very low
bending strength [223].
These results just show that the strength characteristics of LOM-
printed parts are very anisotropic, i.e. very large difference of
mechanical properties in different orientations. Part designers and
manufacturers should be very cautious in designing and printing
parts using this method.
6. Approximation of mechanical properties by finite
element analysis
6.1. Tensile
Rodriguez et al. applied the strength of materials principles and
elasticity approach in order to estimate the stiffness of FDM-printed
ABS material, as shown in Fig. 22 [224].
6.2. Compressive
Finite element modelling has been employed by a group [140]
and they reported a reasonable estimation of the experimental
tests in the initial stage (i.e. linear behavior), as shown in Fig. 23.
However, the Finite Element Modelling results failed to replicate
the yield and failure of the SLS-printed Nylon. A different damage
model should be used in order to simulate the characteristics of
porous FE models.
The rule of mixture and property transformation equation (ana-
lytical approach) were used by Sugavaneswaran et al. to estimate
the elastic properties of additive manufactured parts, and they
observed that the analytical approach was similar with the results
of the experiment (they used a hybrid Polyjet 3DP 3D printing tech-
nique to print composite samples) [221].
Zarbakhsh et al. employed a nested sub-modeling approach and
FEA to analyze the mechanical characteristics of 3D-printed parts.
The maximum principle stress is concentrated at the layers. The
results could improve the quality of Additively-manufactured parts
[225].
61
3D Matter developed an FEA methodology to approximate the
mechanical behavior of 3D-printed parts. The inputs for their
methodology include: Technology, material type, brand of material,
infill%, layer height, infill pattern, section area, orientation. They
analyze tensile test, Charpy impact test, and Hardness test [226].
The usual ways that Finite Element Analysis (FEA) are employed
may not be applicable due to the inherent anisotropy, possible com-
plex designs, and uncertain qualities of 3D-printed parts. FEA can
no longer accurately predict the behavior of 3D-printed parts, in
the same way FEA estimates the behavior of parts produced by
traditional methods. What adds to the complexity are the differ-
ent Additive Manufacturing (3d printing) methods and the lack
of test results using these printing methods and therefore very
few strength data [227]. The company 3D Matter has a database,
named Optimatter, which compares different printing materials
and parameters in order to analyze the mechanical characteristics
of 3D-printed parts [228,229,230].
Of course simplified models can be adopted and assumptions
be made in order to simulate the mechanical properties of 3D-
printed parts, but the approximations will not be very realistic. To
realize the industrial-level adoption for the 3D-printed parts, AM
techniques should be able to prove their structural and mechani-
cal acceptability [227]. ASTM’s International Committee F42, which
seeks to develop standards for Additive Manufacturing, has the
ASTM F3091/F3091M – 14 standard for the powder bed fusion of
plastic materials [231]. For the use of FEA in approximating the
behavior of Additively Manufactured parts, tools and solvers should
be developed in order to properly estimate, characterize and solve
models. Part designers should be cautious though in using FEA
until the time all the above mentioned considerations have been
addressed [227].
7. Assessment of test methods
The mechanical properties of 3D-printed parts vary depending
on the following factors: material used (brand, density, molec-
ular weight, quality, etc), AM technology used, infill%, printing
62 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
orientation (build and raster), layer height (resolution), infill pat-
tern, cross-sectional area, post-processing (method and time), build
number, and others. It is quite complicated and difficult to predict
how a part would behave given a certain mechanical load. In this
report, the authors deemed it necessary to include a set of ques-
tions to give more clarity on the topic, and could be considered
when standardizing test procedures. These are:
1) How can we reconcile the different values obtained with all the
parameters/factors involved?
2) Since there are large differences in mechanical properties of
additively manufactured polymeric parts depending on the AM
technique, should there just be a particular material to be rec-
ommended to be used for a certain strength requirement?
3) Should there be a test standard for each particular application
[8]?
4) Should we just follow the existing ASTM/ISO test standards
for all 3D-printed parts/materials? However there many cases
wherein existing standards may not be applicable to additively
manufactured parts [8,128].
5) Should there also be standards for complex designs [227]?
Fig. 24 shows that prototyping, innovation and product devel-
opment are majority of the reasons for pursuing 3d printing.
These activities somehow equate to development of com-
plex designs that are not possible using traditional methods
[232,48]. This capability of Additive Manufacturing to pro-
duce complex structures is actually the reason why it is
gaining much ground in research and industry. Therefore,
it is important to investigate the mechanical characteris-
tics of these materials having these complex shapes. Easily
put, the standard manufacturing and test procedures to be
crafted/developed should follow market forces [8]. For exam-
ple, in the case of 3D scaffolds for bone tissue engineering [156].
6) How about parts produced using open-source or Do-It-Yourself
3D printers? How do we qualify them [233]?
7) Since additively manufactured parts will be produced in the
relatively lower quantities compared with those produced
using traditional methods, are test standards actually needed?
If so, should there be just one standard per test method? or
should these standards depend on: AM technique? applica-
tion? test method? printing parameters?
8) One group recently reported that the SLA-printed parts have
the highest hardness, print accuracy and surface roughness;
while it says that the Polyjet-printed parts have superior tensile
strength; also that SLS-printed parts have the highest compres-
sive strength and print speed; the three-dimensional printing
(3DP) is also fast and has the cheapest materials for printing;
also that the LOM-printed parts have the highest heat resis-
tance; Lastly, the FFF- and LOM-printed parts have high impact
strengths [79]. The question is, until when will all these hold
true? Of course it will depend on the output quality of each
technology, as well as the development of high performance
printing materials. In fact, it was earlier reported that SLS and
SLA technologies have mechanically stronger final prints than
polyjet [234,235], which runs contrary to the abovementioned
findings.
9) Should other ways be devised in order to monitor the qual-
ity of a 3D-printed part, for example, visually inspecting the
part if there are some defects, and also measuring the mass
of the sample to know if there is under-extrusion inside the
part [236]. Measurement of dimensional accuracy according
to standards could also be one way, e.g. [237,238]. ASTM
also have recently developed the following standards ASTM
F2971–13 [239], for metals ASTM has ASTM F3122–14 [240],
ISO and ASTM also developed a unified standard terminology
for Additive Manufacturing [241]. Lastly, ASTM has a proposed
standard for the effects of anisotropy on Additively Manufac-
tured metal parts [242]. Should there be similar standards for
3D-printed polymer parts?
10) What should be the baseline data for the mechanical charac-
terization of the 3d-printed part? Should it be strength data
from parts produced using traditional methods such as injec-
tion molding? Or should a test piece be cut by conventional
machining? One study actually 3d-printed a PLA block (single
direction) and samples were conventionally cut for mechanical
testing [161]. And what should be the acceptability of the part?
Should it have a strength value similar to the baseline data? Or
should the strength value be of a certain percentage, e.g. ∼90%,
similar to the values obtained by Ahn [128]? Song et al. actually
observed that the toughness of the 3D-printed PLA test sample
is higher than the one measured for the injection-moulded PLA
[161].
8. Summary and conclusion
Additive manufacturing technologies have gained significant
advancement through the years and the products of which are
now being considered to replace those parts/materials that were
manufactured through conventional methods. This report gave
a brief overview of Additive Manufacturing (AM) and AM Tech-
nologies. The commonly-used ASTM and ISO mechanical test
standards which have been used by various research groups to
test the strength of the 3D-printed parts have also been reported.
Lastly, a comprehensive review of the mechanical characteristics
of parts produced by the various AM methods have been dis-
cussed. These include results from different mechanical tests such
as tensile, bending, compression, fatigue, impact and others. Prop-
erties at cryogenic temperatures have also been included. Effects of
nanofiller additions have been briefly discussed. Also, the effects of
post-processing on the mechanical properties have been detailed
for most of the AM methods. Lastly, a set of questions have been
included for standardization of test methods.
3D-printed materials have large anisotropy especially for the
FDM- and SLS-printed parts. The effects of post-processing on the
mechanical properties are also significant especially in the case of
SLA parts.
Although it is still not possible to replace parts with the
same material considering the anisotropy and the relatively lower
strength of Additively Manufactured parts, there is a strong pos-
sibility that, with the wide variety of materials available for AM,
the needed material properties could still be satisfied. And in some
cases, exceed the original parts or those produced via traditional
methods.
With the different additive manufacturing technologies, print-
ing parameters and considerations, it seems that we will not be
seeing a single standard for a particular mechanical test. In the end,
what is important is to have test standards in order to set a foun-
dation to make the products more reproducible, reliable and safe
[8].
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Department of Science and
Technology – Philippine Council for Industry, Energy, and Emerg-
ing Technology Research and Development (DOST-PCIEERD) and
PETRO Case. RCA would like to acknowledge support from Honey-
well, Kansas City National Security Campus (KCNSC) for support.
References
[1] M. Chapiro, Current achievements and future outlook for composites in 3D
printing, Reinf. Plast. 60 (6) (2016) 372–375.
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
[2] A. De Leon, Q. Chen, N. Palaganas, J. Palaganas, J. Manapat, R. Advincula, High
performance polymer nanocomposites for additive manufacturing
applications, React. Funct. Polym. 103 (2016) 141–155.
[3] X. Wang, M. Jiang, Z. Zhou, J. Gou, D. Hui, 3D printing of polymer matrix
composites: a review and prospective, Comput.-Aided Des. Compos. Part B
110 (2017) 442–458.
[4] J. Manapat, Q. Chen, P. Ye, R. Advincula, 3D printing of polymer
nanocomposites via stereolithography, Macromol. Mater. Eng. (2016)
(submitted).
[5] W. Gao, The Status, Challenges, and Future of Additive Manufacturing in
Engineering, vol. 69, 2015, pp. 65–89.
[6] D. S. R. A. a. M. G. A. r. o. p. d. s. f. n. m. s. i. t. d. p. (. J. o. M. P. B. Utela, vol. 10,
pp. 96–104, 2008.
[7] Formlabs, 3D Printing with Desktop Stereolithography An Introduction for
Professional Users, White Paper, 2015.
[8] S. Tranchard, V. Rojas, Manufacturing Our 3D Future, 5 May 2015. [Online],
2015, Available: https://www.iso.org/news/2015/05/Ref1956.html
[Accessed 31 May 2017].
[9] B. Berman, 3-D printing: the new industrial revolution, Bus. Horiz. 55 (2012)
155–162.
[10] E. Macdonald, R. Salas, D. Espalin, M. Perez, E. Aguilera, 3D printing for the
rapid prototyping, IEEE Access 2 (2014) 234–242.
[11] K. Atherton, Popular Science: Airbus 3D Printed This 13 Foot Long Drone, 1
June 2016. [Online], 2016, Available: http://www.popsci.com/airbus-3d-
printed-this-13-foot-long-drone [Accessed 31 May 2017].
[12] S. Ford, Additive manufacturing technology: potential implications for U.S.
manufacturing competitiveness, J. Inter. Comm. Econ. (2014) https://www.
usitc.gov/publications/332/journals/vol vi article4 additive manufacturing
technology.pdf.
[13] J. Stansbury, M. Idacavage, 3D printing with polymers: challenges among
expanding options and opportunities, Dent. Mater. 32 (2016) 54–64.
[14] K. Yurief, CNN, 2 May 2017. [Online], 2017, Available: http://money.cnn.
com/2017/05/02/technology/3d-printed-building-mit/.
[15] T. Koslow, 30 Greatest 3D Printed Houses & Structures in the World,
ALL3DP, 16 April 2017. [Online], 2017, Available: https://all3dp.com/1/3d-
printed-house-homes-buildings-3d-printing-construction/.
[16] R. Sanatgar, C. Campagne, V. Nierstrasz, Investigation of the adhesion
properties of direct 3D printing of polymers and nanocomposites on
textiles: effect of FDM printing process parameters, Appl. Surf. Sci. 403
(2017) 551–563.
[17] R. Melnikova, A.F.K. Ehrmann, 3D printing of textile-based structures by
Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) with different polymer materials, IOP
Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering vol. 62 (2014), p. 012018.
[18] J. Tarmy, The Future of Fashion Is 3D Printing Clothes at Home, Bloomberg,
15 April 2016. [Online], 2016, Available: https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2016-04-15/3d-printing-is-poised-to-bring-haute-couture-
into-the-home [Accessed 31 May 2017].
[19] D. Alter, 3D Printing and Dental Implants, Stratasys, [Online], 2017,
Available: http://www.stratasys.com/resources/white-papers/3d-printing-
and-dental-implants [Accessed 5 June 2017].
[20] L. Goldberg, Rehearsing Surgery with 3D Printed Brains General OneFile,
Gale Group, 2017 [Online]. Available:
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=phbpsu&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA488711783&it=r&asid=5aba01834186c26b8fbe0d41e1a1ffc1.
[21] F. Melchels, J. Feijen, D. Grijpma, A review on stereolithography and its
applications in biomedical engineering, Biomaterials 31 (2010) 6121–6130.
[22] J. Ifkovits, J. Burdick, Review: photopolymerizable and degradable
biomaterials for tissue engineering, Tissue Eng. 13 (10) (2007) 2369–2385.
[23] F. Rengier, A. Mehndiratta, H. von Tengg-Kobligk, C.M. Zechmann, R.
Unterhinninghofen, H.-U. Kauczor, F.L. Giesel, 3D printing based on imaging
data: review of medical applications, Int. J. CARS 5 (2010) 335–341.
[24] G. Wu, S. Hsu, Review: polymeric-based 3D printing for tissue engineering, J.
Med. Biol. Eng. 35 (2015) 285–292.
[25] InfoTrac Engineering Collection: Frost & Sullivan Brings Out Report on 3D
Printing Applications for Healthcare: Manufacturing CloseUp, 29 March
2017. [Online], 2017, Available: go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? [Accessed 31
May 2017].
[26] V. Morris, S. Nimbalkar, M. Younesi, P. McClellan, O. Akkus, Medicine
application, mechanical properties, cytocompatibility and manufacturability
of Chitosan:PEGDA hybrid-gel scaffolds by stereolithography, Ann. Biomed.
Eng. 45 (1) (2017) 286–296.
[27] S. Bakarich, R. GorkinIII, M. in het Panhuis, G. Spinks, Three-dimensional
printing fiber reinforced hydrogel composites, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6
(18) (2014) 15998–16006.
[28] S. Kalita, S. Bose, H. Hosick, A. Bandyopadhyay, Development of controlled
porosity polymer-ceramic composite scaffolds via fused deposition
modelling, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 23 (2003) 611–620.
[29] S. Murphy, A. Atala, 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs, Nat. Biotechnol. 32
(8) (2014).
[30] J. Crivello, E. Reichmanis, Photopolymer materials and processes for
advanced technologies, Chem. Mater. 26 (2014) 533–5548.
[31] J. Lee, J. An, C. Chua, Fundamentals and applications of 3D printing for novel
materials, Appl. Mater. Today 7 (2017) 120–133.
[32] N. Hall, Top 10 3D Printed Automotive Industry Innovations Available Right
Now, 3d Printing Industry, 20 June 2016. [Online], 2016, Available: https://
63
3dprintingindustry.com/news/3d-printing-automotive-industry-2-82838/
[Accessed 31 May 2017].
[33] Ford Trials 3D Printing Technology with Stratasys, 7 March 2017. [Online],
2017, Available:
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=phbpsu&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA484352145&it=r&asid=20285a760bbb4a98e1b7f4e89548fcc7
[Accessed 31 May 2017].
[34] K. Morris, Defense AT&L: Driving Innovation to Support the Warfighter,
Defense Acquisition University, 2016, November-December [Online]
Available: http://dau.dodlive.mil/2016/11/04/driving-innovation-to-
support-the-warfighter/ [Accessed 31 May
2017].
[35] Electronic Design: 3D Printing Produces Parts for Military Field Repairs, 7
Nov. 2013. [Online], 2013, Available:
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=phbpsu&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA351946560&it=r&asid=494a4e81b6267b7ec11507d3e0d5d12e
[Accessed 31 May 2017].
[36] J. Peels, 3D Printing in the Military, 3d Print, 23 Feb. 2017 [Online], 2017,
Available: https://3dprint.com/165561/3d-printing-in-the-military/.
[37] B. Decker, Harnessing the Potential of Additive Manufacturing, Defense
AT&L, November-December 2016. [Online], 2016, Available: http://dau.
dodlive.mil/2016/11/04/harnessing-the-potential-of-additive-
manufacturing/ [Accessed 31 Ma7 2017].
[38] J. Mohammed, Applications of 3D printing technologies in oceanography,
Methods Oceanogr. 17 (2016) 97–117.
[39] J. Hiemenz, Additive Manufacturing Trends in Aerospace: Leading the Way:
Stratasys White Paper, [Online], 2017, Available: website: http://
usglobalimages.stratasys.com/Main/Secure/White%20Papers/SSYS-WP-
AeroTrends-03-13-FINAL.pdf?v=635513030276305587.
[40] R. Liu, Z. Wang, T. Sparks, F. Liou, J. Newkirk, Aerospace applications of laser
additive manufacturing, Laser Additi. Manuf. (2017) 351–371.
[41] Winning Design of Mouser Electronics’ International Space Station Design
Challenge Is 3D-Printed in Space, 17 April 2017. [Online], 2017, Available:
http://www.mouser.com/publicrelations mouser iss designprint 2017final/
.
[42] P. Brown, Video: Watch the Winning Mouser ISS Design Project in Action,
IEEE, 4 May 2017. [Online], 2017, Available: http://electronics360.
globalspec.com/article/8611/video-watch-the-winning-mouser-iss-design-
project-in-action [Accessed 4 June 2017].
[43] Kira, 3ders, 5 April 2016 [Online], 2016, Available: http://www.3ders.org/
articles/
20160405wohlersreport2016reveals1billiongrowthin3dprintingindustry.
[44] T. Wohlers, Wohlers Report 2016: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing
State of the Industry, Wohlers Associates, Inc., 2016.
[45] Worldwide Spending on 3d Printing Forecast to Grow at a Compound Rate
of 22.3% to Nearly $29 in 2020, According to IDC’s 3d Printing Spending
Guide, International Data Corporation, Framingham, Massachusetts, 2017.
[46] 3ders,
18 September 2013. [Online], 2013, Available: http://www.3ders.org/articles/
20130918creditsuisse3dprintingmarketwillbemuchbiggerthanwhatindustry
consultantsestimate.
[47] T. Wohlers, Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing
State of the Industry, Wohlers Associates, Inc., 2012.
[48] C. Columbus, Roundup Of 3D Printing Market Forecasts And Estimates, 31
March 2015. [Online], 2015, Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/
louiscolumbus/2015/03/31/2015-roundup-of-3d-printing-market-
forecasts-and-estimates/#5c36f53b1b30 [Accessed 4 June 2017].
[49] T. Wohlers, Wohlers Report 2014: 3D Priting and Additive Manufacturing
State of the Industry, Wohlers Associates, Inc., 2014.
[50] G. Goh, S. Agarwala, G. Goh, V. Dikshit, S. Sing, W. Yeong, Additive
manufacturing in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): challenges and
potential, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 63 (2017) 140–151.
[51] S. Singh, S. Ramakrishna, R. Singh, Material issues in additive
manufacturing: a review, J. Manuf. Processes 25 (2017) 185–200.
[52] I. Gibson, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid
Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, 2nd edition, Springer
Science + Business Media, New York, 2015.
[53] J. Slotwinski, Mechanical Properties of Materials Made Via Additive
Manufacturing, ASTM Standardization News, 2013. [Online], 2013,
Available: https://www.astm.org/standardization-news/?q=update/
mechanical-properties-of-materials-made-via-additive-manufacturing-
nd13.html [Accessed 31 May 2017].
[54] A. Forster, Materials Testing Standards for Additive Manufacturing of
Polymer Materials, NI:ST, Department of Commerce, 2015.
[55] D. Kazmer, in: M. Kutz (Ed.), Three-Dimensional Printing of Plastics, Applied
Plastics Engineering Handbook – Processing, Materials, and Applications, A
Volume in Plastics Design Library, 2nd ed., 2017.
[56] K. Wong, Rapid Ready Tech, 11 April 2017. [Online], 2017, Available: http://
www.rapidreadytech.com/2017/04/wohlers-2017-report-on-3d-printing-
industry-points-to-softened-growth/.
[57] T. Wohlers, Wohlers Report 2017: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing
State of the Industry, Wohlers Associates, Inc., 2017.
[58] M. Monzón, Z. Ortega, A. Martínez, F. Ortega, Standardization in additive
manufacturing: activities carried out by international organizations and
projects, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 76 (2015) 1111–1121.
64 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
[59] T. Campbell, C. Williams, O. Ivanova, B. Garrett, Could 3D Printing Change
the World? Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Additive
Manufacturing, a Strategic Foresight Report, Atlantic Council – Washington,
Washington, 2011.
[60] ISO/ASTM 52900:2015 Additive Manufacturing General Principles,
Terminology, ISO Technical Committee: ISO/TC 261 Additive manufacturing,
2015.
[61] K. Wong, A. Hernandez, A Review of Additive Manufacturing, International
Scholarly Research Network (ISRN) Mechanical Engineering, 12, 2012, p. 10.
[62] M. Vitale, M. Cotteleer, J. Holdowsky, An Overview of Additive
Manufacturing, Defense Acquisition University, November – December
2016. [Online]. Available: http://dau.dodlive.mil/2016/11/04/an-overview-
of-additive-manufacturing/. [Accessed 31 May 2017].
[63] L. Williams, Additive Manufacturing or 3D Scanning and Printing,
Manufacturing Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Education,
2016.
[64] What Is Additive Manufacturing, Wohlers Associates, Inc, [Online], 2017,
Available: https://wohlersassociates.com/additive-manufacturing.html
[Accessed 4 June 2017].
[65] T. Grimm, User’s Guide to Rapid Prototyping, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, 2004, p. 55.
[66] ISO/ASTM, ÏSO,ÏSO/ASTM, 2016. [Online], 2016, Available: https://www.iso.
org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-astm:52915:ed-2:v1:en [Accessed 11 6 2016].
[67] S. Crump, Fast, Precise, Safe Prototype with FDM, ASME PED, vol. 50, 1991,
pp. 53–60.
[68] M. Vaezi, H. Seitz, S. Yang, A review on 3D micro-additive manufacturing
technologies, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67 (2013) 1721–1754.
[69] R. Upputuri, Intamsys, 6 January 2017. [Online], 2017, Available: https://
www.intamsys.com/intamsys-launches-peek-3d-printer/ [Accessed 5 June
2017].
[70] X. Wang, M. Jiang, Z. Zhou, J.H.D. Gou, 3D printing of polymer matrix
composites: a review and prospective, Compos. Part B 110 (2017) 442–458.
[71] A. Sood, R. Ohdar, S. Mahapatra, Parametric appraisal of mechanical
property of fused deposition modelling processed parts, Mater. Des. 31
(2010) 287–295.
[72] J. Kerns, What’s the Difference Between Stereolithography and Selective
Laser Sintering?, 15 March 2015. [Online], 2015, Available: http://www.
machinedesign.com/3d-printing/what-s-difference-between-
stereolithography-and-selective-laser-sintering [Accessed 25 May 2017].
[73] C. Heller, M. Schwentenwein, G. Russmueller, F. Varga, J. Stampfl, R. Liska,
Vinyl esters: low cytoxicity monomers for the fabrication of biocompatible
3d scaffolds by lithography based additive manufacturing, Polym. Sci. Part A
Polym. Chem. 47 (4) (2009) 6941–6945.
[74] Y. Cho, I. Lee, D. Cho, Laser scanning path generation considering
photopolymer solidification in micro-stereolithography, Microsyst. Technol.
11 (2–3) (2005) 158–167.
[75] Form 2 – The Most Advanced Desktop 3D Printer Ever Created, Formlabs,
[Online], 2017, Available: https://formlabs.com/3d-printers/form-2/
[Accessed 5 June 2017].
[76] 3D Printing Technology Comparison: SLA Vs. DLP, Formlabs, 16 11 2016.
[Online], 2016, Available: https://formlabs.com/blog/3d-printing-
technology-comparison-sla-dlp/ [Accessed 11 6 2017].
[77] E. Sachs, M. Cima, J. Cornie, Three dimensional printing: rapid tooling and
prototypes directly from a CAD model, CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 39 (1990)
201–204.
[78] I. Gibson, D. Shi, Material properties and fabrication parameters in selective
laser sintering process, Rapid Prototyp. J. 3 (1997) 129–136.
[79] G. Kim, Y. Oh, A benchmak study on rapid prototyping processes and
machines: quantitative comparisons of mechanical properties, accuracy,
roughness, speed, and material cost, Proc. Insr. Mech. Eng. 22 (2008)
201–215.
[80] C. Deckard, J. Beaman, Process and control issues in selective layer sintering,
ASME PED 33 (1988) 191–197.
[81] C. Chua, K. Leong, C. Lim, Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications, 3rd
ed., World Scientific, Singapore, 2010.
[82] B. Utela, D.A.R. Storti, M. Ganter, A review of process development steps for
new material systems in three dimensional printing (3DP), J. Manuf.
Process. 10 (2) (2008) 96–104.
[83] D. Klosterman, R. Chartoff, G. Graves, N. Osborne, B. Priore, Interfacial
characteristics of composites fabricated by laminated object manufacturing,
Compos. Part A 29A (1998) 1165–1174.
[84] Laminated Object Manufacturing, Castle Island’s Worldwide Guide to Rapid
Manufacturing, 2 January 2010. [Online], 2010, Available: https://web.
archive.org/web/20100102182152/http://home.att.net/∼castleisland/lom.
htm [Accessed 4 June 2017].
[85] S. Naidu, Polyjet Technology, MKS Technology Pvt. Ltd., 15 March 2017
[Online], 2017, Available: http://www.mkstechgroup.com/polyjet-
technology/ [Accessed 4 June 2017].
[86] Polyjet Technology, Stratasys, [Online], 2017, Available: http://www.
stratasys.com/3d-printers/technologies/polyjet-technology [Accessed 4
June 2017].
[87] ASTM D638-14, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[88] ASTM D412-16, Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and
Thermoplastic Elastomers—Tension, ASTM, International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[89] ASTM D882-12, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic
Sheeting, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[90] ASTM D3039/D3039M-14, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of
Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[91] ISO, ISO 527-1:2012 – Plastics – Determination of tensile properties – Part
1: General principles, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 2012.
[92] ISO, ISO 527-2:2012, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 2012.
[93] ISO, ISO 37:2011(en) – Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic—Determination
of tensile stress-strain properties, 2011.
[94] ASTM D790-15e2, Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of
Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials,
ASTM, International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[95] ISO, ISO 178:2010 – Plastics – Determination of flexural properties, ISO/TC
61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 2010.
[96] ASTM D1938-14, Standard Test Method for Tear-Propagation Resistance
(Trouser Tear) of Plastic Film and Thin Sheeting by a Single-Tear Method,
ASTM, International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[97] ISO, ISO 34-2:2015 – Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic – Determination
of tear strength – Part 2: Small (Delft) test pieces, ISO, 2015.
[98] ISO 34-1:2010 – Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic – Determination of
tear strength – Part 1: Trouser, angle and crescent test pieces, ISO, 2010.
[99] ASTM D695-15, Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid
Plastics, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[100] ISO 604:2002 – Plastics – Determination of compressive properties, ISO/TC
61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 2002.
[101] ASTM D256-10e1, Standard Test Methods for Determining the Izod
Pendulum Impact Resistance of Plastics, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[102] ASTM D6110-10, Standard Test Method for Determining the Charpy Impact
Resistance of Notched Specimens of Plastics, ASTM, International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[103] ISO 180:2000 – Plastics – Determination of Izod impact strength, ISO/TC
61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 2000.
[104] ISO 179-1:2010 – Plastics – Determination of Charpy impact properties –
Part 1: Non-instrumented impact test, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior,
2010.
[105] ISO 179-2:1997 – Plastics – Determination of Charpy impact properties –
Part 2: Instrumented impact test, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 1997.
[106] ASTM E384-16, Standard Test Method for Microindentation Hardness of
Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[107] ASTM D2240-15, Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Durometer
Hardness, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[108] ASTM D785-08, Standard Test Method for Rockwell Hardness of Plastics and
Electrical Insulating Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2015.
[109] ISO 2039-1:2001 – Plastics – Determination of hardness – Part 1. Ball
indentation method, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 2001.
[110] ISO 2039-2:1987 – Plastics – Determination of hardness – Part 2: Rockwell
hardness, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 1987.
[111] ASTM D2990-17, Standard Test Methods for Tensile, Compressive, and
Flexural Creep and Creep-Rupture of Plastics, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[112] ISO 899-1:2003 – Plastics – Determination of creep behaviour – Part 1:
Tensile creep, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior, 2003.
[113] ISO 899-2:2003 – Plastics – Determination of creep behaviour – Part 2:
Flexural creep by three-point loading, ISO/TC 61/SC 2 Mechanical behavior,
2003.
[114] ASTM D7791-12, Standard Test Method for Uniaxial Fatigue Properties of
Plastics, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[115] ASTM D3479/D3479M-12, Standard Test Method for Tension-Tension
Fatigue of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[116] ISO 13003:2003 – Fibre-reinforced plastics – Determination of fatigue
properties under cyclic loading conditions, ISO/TC 61/SC 13 Composites and
reinforcement fibres, 2003.
[117] ASTM D7774-12, Standard Test Method for Flexural Fatigue Properties of
Plastics, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[118] ASTM D5592-94(2010), Standard Guide for Material Properties Needed in
Engineering Design Using Plastics, ASTM, International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[119] ISO 286-1:2010(en) – Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—ISO code
system for tolerances on linear sizes—Part 1: Basis of tolerances, deviations
and fits, ISO, 2010.
[120] ASTM E691-16, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study
to Determine the Precision of a Test Method, ASTM, International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[121] R. Goodridge, C. Tuck, R. Hague, Laser sintering of polyamides and other
polymers, Prog. Mater. Sci. 57 (2012) 229–267.
[122] N. Chantarapanich, P. Puttawibul, K. Sitthiseripratip, S. Sucharitpwatskul, S.
Chantaweroad, Study of the mechanical properties of photo-cured epoxy
resin fabricated by stereolithograpy, Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 35 (1)
(2013) 91–98.
[123] J. Stampfl, M. Schuster, S. Baudis, H. Lichtenegger, R. Liska, Biodegradable
stereolithography resins with defined mechanical properties, Virtual Rapid
Manuf. Proc. VRAP (2007) 283–288.
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
[124] P. Camargo, K. Satyanarayana, F. Wypych, Nanocomposites: synthesis,
structure, properties and new APPLICATION opportunities, Mater. Res. 12
(2009).
[125] J. Manapat, J. Mangadlao, B. Tiu, G. Tritchler, R. Advincula, High-strength
stereolithographic 3D printed nanocomposites: graphene oxide
metastability, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9 (1) (2017) 10085–10093.
[126] Z. Zguris, How Mechanical Properties of Stereolithography 3D Prints Are
Affected by UV Curing, Formlabs, [Online], 2017, Available: https://formlabs.
com/media/upload/How-Mechanical-Properties-of-SLA-3D-Prints-Are-
Affected-by-UV-Curing.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2017].
[127] B. Rankouhi, S. Javadpour, F. Delfanian, T. Letcher, Failure analysis and
mechanical characterization of 3D printed ABS with respect to layer
thickness and orientation, J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 16 (3) (2016) 467–481.
[128] S.-H. Ahn, M. Montero, D. Roundy, P. Wright, Anisotropic material properties
of fused deposition modelling ABS, Rapid Prototyp. 8 (4) (2002) 248.
[129] T. Letcher, M. Waytashek, Material property testing of 3D-printed specimen
in PLA on an entry-level 3D printer, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2014
International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (IMECE2014),
Montreal, 2014.
[130] T. Letcher, B. Rankouhi, S. Javadpour, Experimental study of mechanical
properties of additively manufactured ABS plastic as a function of layer
parameters, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition IMECE2015, Houston, 2015.
[131] Anisotropy of 3D-printed Polymers, Veryst, [Online], 2017, Available: http://
www.veryst.com/project/Anisotropyof3DPrintedPolymers [Accessed 5 April
2017].
[132] S. Guessasma, S. Belhabib, H. Nouri, O. Hassana, Anisotropic damage inferred
to 3D printed polymers using fused deposition modelling and subject to
severe compression, Eur. Polym. J. 85 (2016) 324–340.
[133] C. Wendt, M. Batista, E. Moreno, A. Valerga, S. Fernández-Vidal, O. Droste, M.
Marcos, Preliminary design and analysis of tensile test samples developed
by Additive Manufacturing, Procedia Eng. 132 (2015) 132–139.
[134] A. Sood, R. Ohdar, S. Mahapatra, Experimental investigation and empirical
modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement, J. Adv.
Res. 3 (2012) 81–90.
[135] C. Ziemian, M. Sharma, S. Ziemian, Anisotropic mechanical properties of ABS
parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling, in: D.M. Gokcek (Ed.),
Mechanical Engineering, In Tech, 2012.
[136] I. Durgun, R. Ertan, Experimental investigation of FDM process for
improvement of mechanical properties and production cost, Rapid Prototyp.
20 (3) (2014).
[137] K. Chockalingam, N. Jawahar, U. Chandrasekhar, Influence of layer thickness
on mechanical properties in stereolithography, Rapid Prototyp. J. (1995).
[138] K. Chockalingam, N. Jawahar, U. Chandrasekar, K. Ramanathan,
Establishment of process model for part strength in Stereolithography, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 208 (2008) 348–365.
[139] B. Caulfield, P. McHugh, S. Lohfeld, Dependence of mechanical properties of
polyamide components on build parameters in the SLS process, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 182 (2007) 477–488.
[140] U. Ajoku, N. Hopkinson, M. Caine, Experimental measurement and finite
element modelling of the compressive properties of laser sintered Nylon-12,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 428 (2006) 211–216.
[141] U. Ajoku, N. Saleh, N. Hopkinson, R. Hague, P. Erasenthiran, Investigating
mechanical anisotropy and end-of-vector effect in laser-sintered nylon
parts, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B: J. Eng. Manuf. 220 (7) (2006) 1077–1086.
[142] D. Bourell, T. Watta, D. Leigh, B. Fulcher, Performance limitations in polymer
laser sintering, Phys. Procedia 56 (2014) 147–156.
[143] P. Jain, P. Pandey, P. Rao, Experimental investigations for improving part
strength in selective laser sintering, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 3 (3) (2008)
177–188.
[144] H. Zarringhalam, N. Hopkinson, N. Kamperman, J. de Vlieger, Effects of
processing on microstructure and properties of SLS Nylon 12, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 435–436 (2006) 172–180.
[145] T.J. Gornet, K.R. Davis, T.L. Starr, K.M. Mulloy, Characterization of selective
laser sintering materials to determine process stability, in: Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, University of Texas in Austin, USA, 2002.
[146] A. Stephen, K.W. Dalgarno, J. Munguia, Development of a quality system for
polymer based SLS process, in: Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
University of Texas in Austin, USA, 2013.
[147] M. Zhang, X. Song, W. Grove, E. Hull, Z. Pei, F. Ning, W. Cong, Carbon
nanotube reinforced fused deposition modeling using microwave
irradiation, in: ASME 2016 11th International Manufacturing Science and
Engineering Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, 2016.
[148] D. Lin, S. Jin, F. Zhang, C. Wang, Y. Wang, C. Zhou, G. Cheng, 3D
stereolithography printing of graphene oxide reinforced complex
architectures, Nanotechnology 26 (2015) 434003.
[149] Z. Weng, Y. Zhou, W. Lin, T. Senthil, L. Wu, Structure-property relationship of
nano enhanced stereolithography resin for desktop SLA 3D printer, Compos.
Part A 88 (2016) 234–242.
[150] J. Koo, R. Ortiz, B. Ong, H. Wu, in: M. Brandt (Ed.), Polymer Nanocomposites
for Laser Additive Manufacturing, in Laser Additive Manufacturing, 1st ed.,
Woodhead Publishing, 2016, pp. 205–235.
[151] M. Bhattacharya, Polymer nanocomposites—a comparison between carbon
nanotubes, graphene, and clay as nanofillers, Materials 9 (4) (2016) 262.
65
[152] G. Melenka, B. Cheung, J. Schofield, M. Dawson, J. Carey, Evaluation and
prediction of the tensile properties of continuous fiber-reinforced 3D
printed structures, Compos. Struct. 153 (2016) 866–875.
[153] J. Cantrell, S. Rohde, D. Damiani, R. Gurnani, L. DiSandro, J. Anton, A. Young,
A. Jerez, D. Steinbach, C. Kroese, P. Ifju, Experimental characterization of the
mechanical properties of 3D printed ABS and polycarbonate parts, in: S.
Yoshida, L. Lamberti, C. Sciammarella (Eds.), Advancement of Optical
Methods in Experimental Mechanics – Conference Proceedings of the
Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, vol. 3, Springer, Cham, 2017.
[154] B. Lee, J. Abdullah, Z. Kha, Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for
production of flexible ABS object, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169 (2005)
54–61.
[155] C. Lee, S. Kim, H. Kim, S. Ahn, Measurement of anisotropic compressive
strength of rapid prototyping parts, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 187–188
(2007) 627–630.
[156] K. Lee, S. Wang, B. Fox, E. Ritman, M. Yaszemski, L. Lu, Poly(propylene
fumarate) bone tissue engineering scaffold fabrication using
stereolithography: effects of resin formulations and laser parameters,
Biomacromolecules 8 (2007) 1077–1084.
[157] D. Türk, F. Brenni, M. Zogg, M. Meboldt, Mechanical characterization of 3D
printed polymers for fiber reinforced polymers processing, Mater. Des. 118
(2017) 256–265.
[158] K. Rahman, T. Letcher, T. Reese, Mechanical properties of additively
manufactured PEEK components using fused filament fabrication (IMECE),
in: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, Houston, Texas, 2015, p. 2015.
[159] C. Ziemian, R. Ziemian, K. Haile, Characterization of stiffness degradation
caused by fatigue damage of additive manufactured parts, Mater. Des. 109
(2016) 209–218.
[160] J. Cantrell, S. Rohde, D. Damiani, R. Gurnani, L. DiSandro, J. Anton, A. Young,
A. Jerez, D. Steinbach, C. Kroese, P. Ifju, Experimental characterization of the
mechanical properties of 3D-Printed ABS and polycarbonate parts,
Advancement Opt. Methods Exp. Mech. 3 (2016) 89–105.
[161] Y. Song, Y. Li, W. Song, K. Yee, K.- Lee, V. Tagarielli, Measurements of the
mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-printed PLA, Mater. Des. 123
(2017) 154–164.
[162] Staying Cool on the ISS, NASA, 21 March 2001. [Online], 2001, Available:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar 1
[Accessed 4 June 2017].
[163] K. Weiss, N. Bagrets, C. Lange, W. Goldacker, J. Wohlgemuth, Thermal and
mechanical properties of selected 3D printed thermoplastics in the
cryogenic, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering vol. 102
(2015) 012022.
[164] P. Cruz, E. Shoemake, P. Adam, J. Leachman, Tensile strengths of polyamide
based 3D printed polymers in liquid nitrogen, IOP Conf. Series: Materials
Science and Engineering vol. 102 (2015) 012020.
[165] E. Bartolomé, B. Bozzo, P. Sevilla, O. Martínez-Pasarell, T. Puig, X. Granados,
ABS 3D printed solutions for cryogenic applications, Cryogenics 82 (2017)
30–37.
[166] R.K.V. Dinwiddie, J. Lindal, B. Post, R. Smith, L. Love, C. Duty, Infrared
imaging of the polymer 3D-printing process, Proceedings of SPIE – The
International Society for Optical Engineering 9105 (2014) 910502.
[167] O. Mohamed, S. Masood, J. Bhowmik, Experimental investigation of
time-dependent mechanical properties of PC-ABS prototypes processed by
FDM additive manufacturing process, Mater. Lett. 193 (2017) 58–62.
[168] 3dhubs, [Online], 2017, Available: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-
base/post-processing-fdm-printed-parts#paint [Accessed 4 June 2017].
[169] Y. He, G.H. Xue, J.Z. Fu, Fabrication of low cost soft tissue prostheses with the
desktop 3D printer, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014).
[170] S. Shaffer, K. Yang, J. Vargas, M.A. Di Prima, W. Voit, On reducing anisotropy
in 3D printed polymers via ionizing radiation, Polymer 55 (2014) 59695979.
[171] E. LLC, Post Processing for FDM Printed Parts, 3D Hubs, [Online], 2017,
Available: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/post-processing-
fdm-printed-parts [Accessed 13 6 2017].
[172] J. Dulieu-Barton, M. Fulton, Mechanical properties of a typical
stereolithography resin, Strain Int. J. Exp. Mech. 36 (2) (2000) 81–87.
[173] R. Hague, Materials analysis of stereolithography resins for use in rapid
manufacturing, J. Mater. Sci. 39 (7) (2004) 2457–2464.
[174] S. Mansour, M. Gilbert, R. Haguec, A study of the impact of short-term
ageing on the mechanical properties of a stereolithography resin, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 447 (2007) 277–284.
[175] J. Stampfl, S. Baudis, C. Heller, R. Liska, A. Neumeister, R. Kling, A. Ostendorf,
M. Spitzbart, Photopolymers with tunable mechanical properties processed
by laser-based high-resolution stereolithography, J. Micromech. Microeng.
18 (12) (2008) 125014.
[176] P. Dorfinger, J. Stampfl, R. Liska, Toughening of photopolymers for
stereolithography (SL), Mater. Sci. Forum 825–826 (2015) 53–59.
[177] A. Torres-Filho, D. Neckers, Mechanical properties of acrylate networks
formed by visible laser-induced polymerization – 2. Control of the
mechanical properties, Chem. Mater. 7 (1995) 744–753.
[178] S. Kumar, M. Hofmann, B. Steinmann, E. Foster, C. Weder, Reinforcement of
stereolithographic resins for rapid prototyping with cellulose nanocrystals,
Appl. Mater. Interfaces 4 (2012) 5399–5407.
[179] S. Jayanthi, B. Hokujand, J. Lawton, Influence of post curing conditions on the
mechanical properties of stereolithographic photopolymers, Proceedings of
the Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (1995).
66 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
[180] G. Salmoria, C. Ahrens, M. Fredel, V. Soldi, A. Pires, Stereolithography somos
7110 resin: mechanical behavior and fractography of parts post-cured by
different methods, Polym. Test. 24 (2005) 157–162.
[181] Y. Choong, S. Maleksaeedi, H. Eng, J. Wei, P.C. Su, 4D printing of high
performance shape memory polymer using stereolithography, Mater. Des.
126 (2017) 219–225.
[182] A. da Cruz, Mechanical Properties of PTMC Scaffolds Constructed by
Stereolithography for the Repair of Annulus Fibrosus Tissue – Effect of
Scaffold Characteristics on Cell Adhesion and Proliferation, Dissertation,
Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2014.
[183] E. Schwahn, Using Controlled Curing in a Custom Stereolithography-based
3D Printing Machine to Obtain Graded Property Variations, Dissertation,
University of Nebrask, Lincoln, 2015.
[184] Photocentric, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://photocentric3d.com/uv
resin/?v=7516fd43adaa. [Accessed 12 June 2017].
[185] Somos, DSM, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.dsm.com/products/
somos/en US/products.html. [Accessed 12 June 2017].
[186] Form Wash + FOrm Cure, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://formlabs.com/
tools/wash-cure/?utm content=live-chat. [Accessed 12 June 2017].
[187] D. van der Steen, Post Processing for SLA Printed Parts, 2017. [Online], 2017,
Available: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/post-processing-sla-
printed-parts [Accessed 13 6 2017].
[188] M. Monzón, Z. Ortega, A. Hernández, R. Paz, F. Ortega, Anisotropy of
photopolymer parts made by digital light processing, Materials 10 (1)
(2017) 64.
[189] E. Garcia, C. Ayranci, A. Qureshi, Digital light processing (DLP): anisotropic
tensile considerations, in: 2017 Annual International Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium (SFF Symp 2017), Austin, Texas, 2017.
[190] S. Dadbakhsh, L. Verbelen, T. Vandeputte, D. Strobe, P. Puyvelde, J. Kruth,
Effect of powder size and shape on the SLS processability and mechanical
properties of a TPU elastomer, Phys. Procedia 83 (2016) 971–980.
[191] D. Drummer, K. Wudy, F. Kühnlein, M. Drexler, Polymer blends for selective
laser sintering: material and process requirements, Phys. Procedia 39 (2012)
509–517.
[192] D. Drummer, K. Wudy, M. Drexler, Influence of energy input on degradation
behavior of plastic components manufactured by selective laser melting,
Phys. Procedia 56 (2014) 176–183.
[193] C. Majewski, H. Zarringhalam, N. Hopkinson, Effect of the degree of particle
melt on mechanical properties in selective laser-sintered Nylon-12 parts,
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 222 (9) (2008) 1055–1064.
[194] B. Van Hooreweder, F. De Coninck, D. Moens, R. Boonen, P. Sas,
Microstructural characterization of SLS-PA12 specimens under dynamic
tension/compression excitation, Polym. Test. 29 (2010) 319–326.
[195] M. Kohan, Nylon Plastics Handbook, Hanser/Gardner Publications,
Cincinnati, OH, 1995.
[196] Forecast3d, [Online]. Available: https://www.forecast3d.com/ref/ref.
php?material=FDM Nylon 12. [Accessed 4 June 2017].
[197] H. Zarringhalam, N. Hopkinson, Post-processing of DURAFORM parts for
rapid manufacture, in: Proceedings of the 14th Solid Freeform Fabrication
(SFF) Symposium 2003, University of Texas (Austin), 2003.
[198] J. Nelson, N. Vail, M. Sun, J. Barlow, Post-Processing of Selective Laser
Sintered Polycarbonate Parts, 1991.
[199] V. Gordon, Post-Processing Tips: Hand-Dyeing Strong & Flexible Plastics,
Shapeways, 19 1 2017. [Online], 2017, Available: https://www.shapeways.
com/blog/archives/28935-post-processing-tips-hand-dyeing-strong-
flexible-plastics.html[Accessed 13 6 2017].
[200] B. Redwood, Post Processing for SLS Printed Part, 3D Hubs, 2017. [Online],
2017, Available: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/post-
processing-sls-printed-parts [Accessed 13 6 2017].
[201] R. Giordano, W.B.S. Borland, L. Cima, E. Sachs, M. Cima, Mechanical
properties of dense polylactic acid structures fabricated by three
dimensional printing, J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 8 (1) (1996) 63–75.
[202] C. Lam, X. Mo, S. Teoh, D. Hutmacher, Scaffold development using 3D
printing with a starch-based polymer, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 20 (2002) 49–56.
[203] Y. Wang, D. Rouholamin, R. Davies, O. Ghita, Powder characteristics,
microstructure and properties of graphite reinforced Poly Ether Ether
Ketone composites in High Temperature Laser Sintering (HT-LS), Mater. Des.
88 (2015) 310–320.
[204] T. Galeta, P. Raos, J. Stojsic, I. Paksi, Influence of Structure on mechanical
properties of 3d printed objects, Procedia Eng. 149 (2016) 100–104.
[205] A. El-Hajje, E. Kolos, J. Wang, S. Maleksaeedi, Z. He, F. Wiria, C. Choong, A.
Ruys, Physical and mechanical characterisation of 3D-printed porous
titanium for biomedical applications, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 25 (2014)
2471–2480.
[206] S. Uhland, H.R.S. Morissette, M. Cima, E. Sachs, Strength of green ceramics
with low binder content, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 84 (12) (2001) 2809–2818.
[207] A. Butscher, M. Bohner, S. Hofmann, L. Gauckler, R. Müller, Structural and
material approaches to bone tissue engineering in powder-based
three-dimensional printing, Acta Biomater. 7 (2011) 907–920.
[208] U. Gbureck, T. Hoelzel, I. Biermann, J. Barralet, L. Grover, Preparation of
tricalcium phosphate/calcium pyrophosphate structures via rapid
prototyping, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 19 (4) (2008) 1559–1563.
[209] R. Chumnanklang, T. Panyathanmaporn, K. Sitthiseripratip, J. Suwanprateeb,
3D printing of hydroxyapatite: effect of binder concentration in pre-coated
particle on part strength, Mater. Sci. Eng. C Biomimetic Supramol. Syst. 27
(4) (2007) 914–921.
[210] A. Pilipović, P. Raos, M. Šercer, Experimental analysis of properties of
materials for rapid prototyping, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 40 (2009)
105–115.
[211] H. Seitz, U. Deisinger, B. Leukers, R. Detsch, G. Ziegler, Different calcium
phosphate granules for 3-d printing of bone tissue engineering scaffolds,
Adv. Eng. Mater. 11 (5) (2009) B41–46.
[212] F. Fierz, F. Beckmann, M. Huser, S. Irsen, B. Leukers, F. Witte, O. Degistirici, A.
Andronache, M. Thie, B. Müller, The morphology of anisotropic 3D-printed
hydroxyapatite scaffolds, Biomaterials 29 (28) (2008) 3799–3806.
[213] F. Feenstra, Method for making a dental element. United States Patent
6,955,776, 2005.
[214] B. Utela, D. Storti, M. Ganter, A review of process development steps for new
material systems in three dimensional printing (3DP), J. Manuf. Process. 10
(2) (2008) 96–104.
[215] D. Impens, R.J. Urbanic, Assessing the impact of post-processing variables on
tensile and compression characteristics for 3D printed components,
IFAC-PapersOnLine 48 (3) (2015) 652–657.
[216] A. Cazón, P. Morer, L. Matey, PolyJet technology for product prototyping:
tensile strength and surface roughness roperties, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. B J.
Eng. 228 (2014) 1664–1675.
[217] P. Gay, D. Blanco, F. Pelayo, A. Noriega, P. Fernández, Analysis of factors
influencing the mechanical properties of flat PolyJet manufactured parts,
Procedia Eng. 132 (2015) 70–77.
[218] C.A. Costa, P.R. Linzmaier, F.M. Pasquali, Rapid prototyping material
degradation: a study of mechanical properties, IFAC Proc. 46 (24) (2013)
350–355.
[219] J. Moore, C. Williams, Fatigue characterization of 3D printed elastomer
material, in: Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, Annual International
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, University of Texas, Austin, 2012.
[220] J. Mueller, S. Kim, K. Shea, C. Daraio, Tensile properties of inkjet 3d printed
parts: critical process parameters and their efficient analysis, in:
Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
IDETC/CIE 2015, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2015.
[221] M. Sugavaneswaran, G. Arumaikkannu, Analytical and experimental
investigation on elastic modulus of reinforced additive manufactured
structure, Mater. Des. 66 (2015) 29–36.
[222] J. Moore, C. Williams, Fatigue properties of parts printed by PolyJet material
jetting, Rapid Prototyp. J. 21 (6) (2016) 675–685.
[223] A. Pilipović, P. Raos, M. Šercer, Experimental testing of quality of polymer
parts produced, Technical Gazette 18 (2) (2011) 253–260.
[224] J. Rodriguez, J. Thomas, J. Renaud, Mechanical behavior of acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene fused desposition materials modeling, Rapid Prototyp. J. 9
(4) (2003) 219.
[225] J. Zarbakhsh, A. Iravani, Z. Amin-Akhlaghi, Sub-modeling finite element
analysis of 3D printed structures, in: 2015 16th International Conference on
Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in
Microelectronics and Microsystems, Budapest, Hungary, 2015.
[226] 3. Matter, Optimatter Methodology, 3D Matter, [Online], 2017, Available:
http://my3dmatter.com/optimatter-methodology/ [Accessed 11 6 2017].
[227] G. Grob, GrabCad Blog, GrabCad, 27 April 2016. [Online], 2016, Available:
http://blog.grabcad.com/blog/2016/04/27/fea-and-3d-printing-challenges/
[Accessed 11 June 2017].
[228] Optimatter, 3DMatter, [Online], 2017, Available: https://www.optimatter.
com/ [Accessed 11 6 2017].
[229] M. Molitch-Hou, Optimatter, 3D Matter, 30 5 2016. [Online], 2016,
Available: http://www.engineering.com/3DPrinting/3DPrintingArticles/
ArticleID/12236/Picking-the-Right-3D-Printing-Material-with-OptiMatter.
aspx [Accessed 11 6 2017].
[230] M. Molitch-Hou, Engineering.com, 8 November 2016. [Online], 2016,
Available: http://www.engineering.com/3DPrinting/3DPrintingArticles/
ArticleID/13614/FEA-Analysis-and-Predicting-the-Performance-of-3D-
Printing.aspx [Accessed 11 6 2017].
[231] ASTM F3091/F3091M – 14 – Standard Specification for Powder Bed Fusion
of Plastic Materials, 2014, West Conshohocken, PA.
[232] Gartner Survey Reveals That High Acquisition and Start-Up Costs Are
Delaying Investment in 3D Printers, Gartner, Eggham, U.K, 2014.
[233] B. Tymrak, M. Kreiger, J. Pearce, Mechanical properties of components
fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental
conditions, Mater. Des. 58 (2014) 242–246.
[234] J. Beaman, J. Barlow, D. Bourell, R. Crawford, H. Marcus, K. McAlea, Solid
Freeform Fabrication: A New Direction in Manufacturing, Springer, New
York, 1996.
[235] L. Murr, S. Gaytan, D. Ramirez, E. Martinez, J. Hernandez, K. Amato, P.
Shindo, F. Medina, R. Wicker, Metal fabrication by additive manufacturing
using laser and electron beam melting technologies, J. Mater. Sci. Technol.
28 (2012) 1–14.
[236] N. Tanikella, B. Wittbrodt, J. Pearceb, Tensile strength of commercial
polymer materials for fused filament fabrication 3D printing, Addit. Manuf.
15 (2017) 40–47.
[237] UNI EN ISO 286-1:2010 – Iso Code System For Tolerances On Linear Sizes –
Part 1: Basis Of Tolerances, Deviations And Fits, Italian Standards, 2010.
[238] R. Singh, Process capability study of polyjet printing for plastic component, J.
Mech. Sci. Technol. 25 (4) (2011) 1011–1015.
[239] ASTM F2971–13 – Standard Practice for Reporting Data for Test Specimens
Prepared by Additive Manufacturing, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
 J.R.C. Dizon et al. / Additive Manufacturing 20 (2018) 44–67
[240] ASTM F3122–14 – Standard Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of
Metal Materials Made via Additive Manufacturing Processes, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[241] ASTM, ISO./ASTM52921–13 – Standard Terminology for Additive
Manufacturing-Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[242] ASTM, ASTM WK49229 – New Guide for Orientation and Location
Dependence Mechanical Properties for Metal Additive Manufacturing,
ASTM.
67
[243] About Additive Manufacturing – Material Extrusion, Loughborough
University, [Online], 2017, Available: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/
amrg/about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/materialextrusion/
[Accessed 25 May 2017] [Accessed 25 May 2017].
[244] LaurensvanLieshout, Laminated Object Manufacturing, Wikimedia, 15
January 2010. [Online], 2010, Available: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Laminated object manufacturing.png#/media/File:Laminated
object manufacturing.png [Accessed 4 June 2017].