Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Experimental validation of numerical model for thermomechanical

performance of material extrusion additive manufacturing process: Effect of
infill design & density
Ans Al Rashid a, *, Muammer Koç a, b
a
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar
b
Faculty of Engineering, University of Karabük, Karabük 78050, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The optimum selection of process parameters, materials, and product design is essential to achieve the desired
Fused filament fabrication response of 3D-printed structures, especially in functional components. The current practices of the experimental
Process simulation optimization process require significant resources, which can be limited through numerical modeling and
Dimensional analysis
simulation techniques. In this study, a thermomechanical numerical model is used to predict the performance of
Polymer composites
Warpage
the additive manufacturing (AM) process, i.e., fused filament fabrication (FFF). 3D printing (3DP) process
simulations were performed for tensile testing coupons using carbon fiber-reinforced polyamide-6 (PA6-CF)
material. The numerical model predicted the effect of infill patterns and densities on the deflections and dis­
tortions during the FFF process. The numerical model predictions were validated via experiments performed
under similar conditions. The results conclude that the numerical model can adequately predict the process-
induced deflections and distortions during the FFF process. Generally, higher dimensional control was
observed for rectangular infill patterns and increased infill density. However, the numerical model overestimates
the shrinkage as the stress-relaxation effect is not considered in the numerical model and underestimates the
warpages as perfect build plate adhesion is assumed.

1. Introduction help promote sustainability (by reducing waste) and optimize the
quality of functional parts before proceeding to actual fabrication [11].
Additive manufacturing (AM), a. k.a. 3D printing (3DP) processes, Although the FFF process seems straightforward, it involves complex
provide the freedom to utilize various materials with a variable set of physical phenomena [12]. Several computational modeling models have
process parameters and unlimited product design flexibility [1]. Owing been developed to approximate motion planning [13], heat transfer [14,
to the endless benefits of these processes, they are now widely utilized in 15], material flow behavior [16–19], warpage [20], residual stresses
different industrial applications, i.e., aerospace, automotive, construc­ [21], and adhesion [22,23]. In addition, efforts are also made to opti­
tion, biomedical, etc. [2–6]. Among broadly classified AM processes, the mize the process parameters [24] and predict the mechanical response
fused filament fabrication (FFF) technique is most widely adopted due to of 3D-printed structures [25–32]. Although literature exists in this field,
the inexpensive commercial availability of 3DP machines [7]. Several the reported studies consider only a single sub-process of the whole FFF
studies report using experimental techniques to characterize 3D-printed process and are still in their infancy. Secondly, the experimental vali­
parts [8–10]. However, the optimum selection of material, process pa­ dations of the computational modeling approaches are limited.
rameters, and product design is nearly impossible through convention­ Based on the existing literature in the field, there is an eminent need
ally used trial-and-error experimental approaches [11]. Therefore, to develop and validate the numerical models capable of considering the
numerical models capable of estimating the temperature variations, part effect of FFF process parameters, material properties, and the design of
distortions, and residual stresses during and after the 3DP process can 3D-printed parts. The reported work is a part of ongoing research

Abbreviations: AM, Additive Manufacturing; 3DP, 3D Printing; FFF, Fused Filament Fabrication; PA6-CF, Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polyamide-6; STL, Standard
Tessellation Language; NM, Numerically Predicted; EM, Experimentally Measured.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Al Rashid), [email protected] (M. Koç).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100860
Received 15 November 2022; Received in revised form 13 December 2022; Accepted 20 December 2022
Available online 22 December 2022
2590-1230/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Al Rashid and M. Koç Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

activity, where all these aspects are considered in terms of 3D-printed of 4 mm was selected with a mesh size of 0.2 mm, corresponding to the
product quality and mechanical performance. The effect of process pa­ desired layer height. The roof and bottom layers were fabricated with
rameters on the quality of the 3D-printed parts [33] and the effect of alternating ±45⁰ raster angles. Other process parameters include
product design on mechanical performance [34] are reported elsewhere extrusion temperature (250 ◦ C), build plate temperature (110 ◦ C),
by the same authors. In this study, the same numerical model (used in chamber/room temperature (25 ◦ C), bead width (0.4 mm), and
the previous studies) is utilized to observe the effect of infill design and convention coefficient (0.015 mW/mm2◦ C), which were selected as per
density on the dimensional accuracy of the carbon fiber-reinforced experimental setup.
polyamide-6 (PA6-CF) FFF fabricated parts. The 3DP process quality is
quantified in terms of dimensional control and warpages and subse­ 2.2. FFF Experiments
quently validated with the experimental results.
The G-code files obtained from slicing software were used to fabri­
2. Methodology cate specimens using a Markforged Mark Two 3D printer with a nozzle
size of 0.4 mm. Carbon fiber-reinforced polyamide-6 (PA6-CF) material
The overall methodology adopted for this study is presented in Fig. 1. with 1.75 mm of filament diameter (procured from Markforged com­
The standardized tensile testing sample following ASTM standard D-638 pany) was used in this study. Three different infill patterns (hexagon,
Type-I [35] was designed using Solidworks software, as reported in rectangle, triangle) with variable infill densities (18–55%) ended up
Fig. 2. The standard tessellation language (STL) format of the designed with eleven combinations of designed specimens. At least three samples
specimen was imported to online slicing software (Eiger, from Mark­ were fabricated for each infill design and density to perform the
forged). Three infill patterns (Hexagon, Rectangle, and Triangle) with dimensional measurements. The overall length, grip width, gauge width,
varying infill densities ranging from 18 to 55% were designed for and thickness were measured using a vernier caliper, and warpages were
investigation, and toolpath information was obtained as G-codes. The measured using an optical microscope. The recorded experimental
specimens with variable infill patterns and densities were used for FFF measurements were compared with numerical model predictions.
process simulation and 3DP of designed samples. The materials and
methods adopted for the FFF process simulation and experimental setup 3. Results and Discussion
are presented in subsequent sections.
The numerical model predicts the displacements, residual stresses,
2.1. FFF Process Simulation and warpages based on the given material properties, process parame­
ters, and part design. A summary of results from the numerical model
The specimens modeled using Solidworks and G-codes obtained from simulation results is reported in Table 1 and Fig. 3 and is discussed in the
the slicing software were used for the FFF process simulations. The G- subsequent sections.
codes contain the toolpath and process parameters information to
ensure consistency within process simulations and 3DP fabrication. The 3.1. Dimensional analysis
thermomechanical numerical model was utilized within Digimat 2021.3
software to estimate the temperature variations, residual stresses, and After completing the numerical simulation, the warped geometries
warpages in the 3D-printed specimens. The software provides two ap­ can be exported for further analysis. The warped geometries in STL
proaches, i.e., layer-by-layer or filament activation techniques. Layer- format were imported to Solidworks software to measure the targeted
by-layer element activation technique was used, as it requires lesser dimensions. The measured targeted dimensions from numerical model
computational resources. In the first step, 3D printer specifications were predictions and 3D-printed samples are presented in Figure A1. The
defined, following the import of specimen geometry and material se­ same procedure was adopted for all the specimens. The physical mea­
lection (carbon fiber-reinforced polyamide-6 (PA6-CF)). An element size surements taken from 3D-printed samples are also compared with the

Fig. 1. Overall methodology and workflow of this study.

2
A. Al Rashid and M. Koç Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

Fig. 2. CAD model of ASTM D638 type I specimen [33].

Table 1
Summary of comparison for part dimensions for designed, numerically predicted (NP), and experimentally measured (EM) on 3DP specimens.
Infill Type Infill Density (%) Specimen Name Analysis Type Overall Length (mm) Grip Width (mm) Gauge Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Distortion (mm)

– – – CAD 165.00 19.00 13.00 4.00 0.00

Hexagon 18 Hex-18 NP 164.34 ± 0.01 18.52 ± 0.01 12.67 ± 0.01 3.90 ± 0.01 0.18 ± 0.01
EM 164.73 ± 0.05 18.80 ± 0.02 12.78 ± 0.02 3.95 ± 0.01 0.20 ± 0.01
28 Hex-28 NP 164.35 ± 0.01 18.53 ± 0.01 12.68 ± 0.01 3.91 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.01
EM 164.76 ± 0.05 18.87 ± 0.02 12.89 ± 0.02 3.96 ± 0.01 0.18 ± 0.01
40 Hex-40 NP 164.36 ± 0.01 18.54 ± 0.01 12.69 ± 0.01 3.92 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01
EM 164.84 ± 0.05 18.91 ± 0.02 12.94 ± 0.02 3.98 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.01
55 Hex-55 NP 164.35 ± 0.01 18.53 ± 0.01 12.68 ± 0.01 3.90 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.01
EM 164.88 ± 0.05 18.94 ± 0.02 12.96 ± 0.02 3.99 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01
Rectangle 18 Rec-18 NP 164.38 ± 0.01 18.52 ± 0.01 12.69 ± 0.01 3.89 ± 0.01 0.09 ± 0.01
EM 164.56 ± 0.05 18.89 ± 0.02 12.91 ± 0.02 3.95 ± 0.01 0.11 ± 0.01
28 Rec-28 NP 164.45 ± 0.01 18.54 ± 0.01 12.71 ± 0.01 3.91 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.01
EM 164.70 ± 0.05 18.92 ± 0.02 12.95 ± 0.02 3.96 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.01
40 Rec-40 NP 164.95 ± 0.01 18.95 ± 0.01 12.95 ± 0.01 3.99 ± 0.01 –
EM 164.78 ± 0.05 18.94 ± 0.02 12.95 ± 0.02 3.98 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01
55 Rec-55 NP 164.66 ± 0.01 18.64 ± 0.01 12.82 ± 0.01 3.86 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01
EM 164.55 ± 0.05 18.97 ± 0.02 12.99 ± 0.02 3.99 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.01
Triangle 28 Tri-28 NP 164.35 ± 0.01 18.53 ± 0.01 12.69 ± 0.01 3.90 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01
EM 164.41 ± 0.05 18.91 ± 0.02 12.93 ± 0.02 3.94 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.01
40 Tri-40 NP 164.36 ± 0.01 18.54 ± 0.01 12.70 ± 0.01 3.91 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.01
EM 164.77 ± 0.05 18.94 ± 0.02 12.95 ± 0.02 3.97 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01
55 Tri-55 NP 164.37 ± 0.01 18.55 ± 0.01 12.71 ± 0.01 3.93 ± 0.01 0.14 ± 0.01
EM 164.85 ± 0.05 18.96 ± 0.02 12.97 ± 0.02 3.99 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.01

numerical model predictions. The numerical model predicts the material density for all the infill patterns, measuring 3.99 mm.
shrinkage during the 3DP and cooling processes in three principal di­ The numerical model could reasonably predict the variations in the
rections, allowing us to estimate the deviations of all the targeted di­ specimen dimensions in three-principal directions. The high dimen­
mensions. Dimensional control is vital in functional applications [36], as sional control of the selected material (CF-PA6) was due to the incor­
it directs the part performance, e.g., mechanical properties [34]. poration of CFs within the PA6 material. Secondly, the rectangular infill
Generally, improved overall dimensions are observed with the in­ patterns provided better dimensional control than other infill patterns
crease in infill density for all the infill patterns. The overall length of due to the material used during the fabrication of the specimens. For
164.36 mm, 164.95 mm, and 164.37 mm was predicted by the numer­ instance, the material volume used for fabricating Rec-55 samples is
ical model for Hex-40, Rec-40, and Tri-55 specimens, which was closest higher than the other two infill patterns at the same infill density (i.e.,
to the targeted dimension of 165 mm. However, for 3D-printed samples, Hex-55 and Tri-55), which hinders the material shrinkage and provides
the best dimensional control was achieved for Hex-55, Rec-40, and Tri- better control over the targeted dimensions. Finally, the numerical
55, measuring 164.88 mm, 164.78 mm, and 164.85 mm in overall model predicts higher shrinkages than observed in the 3D-printed parts
length, respectively. The grip width of 18.54 mm, 18.95 mm, and 18.55 due to the stress relaxation phenomena occurring during the 3DP
mm was predicted by the numerical model for Hex-40, Rec-40, and Tri- fabrication of the samples, which is not considered by the numerical
55 specimens, which was closest to the targeted dimension of 19 mm. model. However, the numerical model reasonably considers the effect of
However, for 3D-printed samples, the best dimensional control was material infill pattern and density, evident from the differences in the
achieved at 55% infill density for all the infill patterns, measuring 18.94 numerical predictions and experimental observations.
mm, 18.97 mm, and 18.96 mm of grip width, respectively.
The gauge width of 12.69 mm, 12.95 mm, and 12.71 mm was pre­ 3.2. Part distortion/warpage
dicted by the numerical model for Hex-40, Rec-40, and Tri-55 speci­
mens, which was closest to the targeted dimension of 13 mm. However, Besides the dimensional variations, the 3D-printed parts distortion/
for 3D-printed samples, the best dimensional control was achieved at warpage is also critical [37]. The warpage measurements from numer­
55% infill density for all the infill patterns, measuring 12.96 mm, 12.99 ical model predictions and experimental measurements are reported in
mm, and 12.97 mm of gauge width, respectively. Finally, the specimen Fig. 4 and summarized in Table 1. As observed in the dimensional
thickness of 3.92 mm, 3.99 mm, and 3.93 mm was predicted by the analysis, the distortions were reduced with the increase in the infill
numerical model for Hex-40, Rec-40, and Tri-55 specimens, which was density of all the infill patterns. The numerical model predicted the
closest to the targeted dimension of 13 mm. However, for 3D-printed minimum warpage of 0.15 mm, 0 mm, and 0.14 mm for Hex-55, Rec-40,
samples, the best dimensional control was achieved at 55% infill and Tri-55 specimens, respectively. Zero or no warpage was observed for

3
A. Al Rashid and M. Koç Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

Fig. 3. Comparison for part dimensions for designed, numerically predicted (NP), and experimentally measured (EM) on 3DP specimens (a) overall length (b) grip
width (c) gauge width (d) thickness (e) distortions.

4
A. Al Rashid and M. Koç Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

Fig. 4. Comparison of numerically predicted and experimentally measured warpage/distortion.

the Rec-40 specimen complementing the dimensional analysis. How­ occurring in the 3DP fabrication, which was not considered in the nu­
ever, for 3D-printed samples, the minimum warpages were observed for merical model. However, higher warpages are observed in the experi­
Hex-55, Rec-40, and Tri-55, measuring 0.16 mm, 0.02 mm, and 0.15 mentally measured values when compared to the numerical model
mm, respectively. The rectangular infill pattern also provided better 3DP predictions due to the perfect build plate adhesion considered in the
quality in terms of distortions. numerical model. The impact of part design is significant on the
In the case of part distortions, the experimental values were higher dimensional control of the 3D-printed part. However, only the part
than the numerical model results for all the infill patterns and densities. design variations were considered in this study; the combined effect of
The higher warpages in 3D-printed samples can be attributed to material properties, process parameters, and part design will be inves­
imperfect build plate adhesion. Once the first layer is deposited on the tigated in future studies.
print bed, conductive heat loss occurs, and the 3D-printed material tends
to achieve build plate temperature resulting in phase-change cooling. Authorship contribution statement
This non-uniform cooling develops thermal strain and residual stresses
within the part, which leads to the specimen edges detachment from the Conceptualization, A.A.R. and M.K.; Methodology, A.A.R.; Software,
build plate. This partial detachment of the part from the build plate A.A.R.; Validation, A.A.R.; Formal analysis, A.A.R.; Investigation, A.A.
allows it to wrap with lesser resistance; therefore, 3D-printed samples R.; Resources, M.K.; Data curation, A.A.R.; Writing – original draft
revealed higher warpages in the z-direction. On the other hand, the preparation, A.A.R.; Writing – review & editing, A.A.R. and M.K.;
numerical model considers perfect build plate adhesion throughout the Visualization, A.A.R.; Supervision, M.K.; Project administration, M.K.;
3DP process until the material cools down and is removed from the build Funding acquisition, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the
plate. published version of the manuscript.

4. Conclusions Declaration of competing interest

In this study, a thermomechanical numerical model is used to The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
investigate the effect of infill patterns and density on the dimensional interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
control of 3D-printed CF-PA6 specimens. Comparisons with experi­ the work reported in this paper.
mental measurements on the 3D-printed samples validated the numer­
ical model predictions (NP). The numerical model predicted the Data availability
dimensional variations and warpages with reasonable accuracy (i.e.,
within X–Y% error). Overall, higher dimensional control was observed Data will be made available on request.
for rectangular infill patterns and increased infill density. From the
numerical model and experimental results, it is concluded that the Acknowledgement
rectangle infill pattern with 40% infill density performed the best in
dimensional control, and the lowest distortions were achieved for the Open access funding was proivded by Qatar National Library (QNL).
same infill pattern and density. The numerical model predictions were
higher for shrinkages in the three-principal directions than the experi­
mental 3D-printed specimens due to stress relaxation phenomena

5
A. Al Rashid and M. Koç Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

Appendix

Fig. A1. Comparison of Numerically Predicted and Physically Measured Targeted Dimensions.

6
A. Al Rashid and M. Koç Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

Fig. A1. (continued).

7
A. Al Rashid and M. Koç Results in Engineering 17 (2023) 100860

[19] D.D. Phan, J.S. Horner, Z.R. Swain, A.N. Beris, M.E. Mackay, Computational fluid
dynamics simulation of the melting process in the fused filament fabrication
additive manufacturing technique, Addit. Manuf. 33 (2020), 101161, https://doi.
References org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101161.
[20] A. Armillotta, M. Bellotti, M. Cavallaro, Warpage of FDM parts: experimental tests
[1] A. Al Rashid, W. Ahmed, M.Y. Khalid, M. Koç, Vat photopolymerization of and analytic model, Robot. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 50 (2018) 140–152,
polymers and polymer composites: processes and applications, Addit. Manuf. 47 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2017.09.007.
(2021), 102279, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2021.102279. [21] A. el Moumen, M. Tarfaoui, K. Lafdi, Modelling of the temperature and residual
[2] R. Imran, A. Al Rashid, M. Koç, Review on computational modeling for the stress fields during 3D printing of polymer composites, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
property, process, product and performance (PPPP) characteristics of additively 104 (2019) 1661–1676, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03965-y.
manufactured porous magnesium implants, Bioprinting 28 (2022), e00236, [22] A. Lepoivre, N. Boyard, A. Levy, V. Sobotka, Heat transfer and adhesion study for
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00236. the FFF additive manufacturing process, Procedia Manuf. 47 (2020) 948–955,
[3] H. Ikram, A. Al Rashid, M. Koç, Additive manufacturing of smart polymeric https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.291.
composites: literature review and future perspectives, Polym. Compos. (2022), [23] S.F. Costa, F.M. Duarte, J.A. Covas, Estimation of filament temperature and
https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.26948. adhesion development in fused deposition techniques, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
[4] B. Yilmaz, A. Al Rashid, Y. Ait, Z. Evis, M. Koç, Bioprinting : a review of processes , 245 (2017) 167–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.02.026.
materials and applications, Bioprinting 23 (2021), e00148, https://doi.org/ [24] T. D’Amico, A.M. Peterson, Bead parameterization of desktop and room-scale
10.1016/j.bprint.2021.e00148. material extrusion additive manufacturing: how print speed and thermal properties
[5] T. Tom, S.P. Sreenilayam, D. Brabazon, J.P. Jose, B. Joseph, K. Madanan, affect heat transfer, Addit. Manuf. 34 (2020), 101239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
S. Thomas, Additive manufacturing in the biomedical field-recent research addma.2020.101239.
developments, Results in Engineering 16 (2022), 100661, https://doi.org/ [25] S. Tabacu, C. Ducu, Numerical investigations of 3D printed structures under
10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100661. compressive loads using damage and fracture criterion: experiments, parameter
[6] A. Albar, M. Chougan, M.J. Al- Kheetan, M.R. Swash, S.H. Ghaffar, Effective identification, and validation, Extreme Mech Lett 39 (2020), 100775, https://doi.
extrusion-based 3D printing system design for cementitious-based materials, org/10.1016/j.eml.2020.100775.
Results in Engineering 6 (2020), 100135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [26] S. Hasanov, A. Gupta, A. Nasirov, I. Fidan, Mechanical characterization of
rineng.2020.100135. functionally graded materials produced by the fused filament fabrication process,
[7] A. Al Rashid, S.A. Khan, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, M. Koç, Additive manufacturing of J. Manuf. Process. 58 (2020) 923–935, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
polymer nanocomposites: needs and challenges in materials, processes, and jmapro.2020.09.011.
applications, J. Mater. Res. Technol. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [27] T. Webbe Kerekes, H. Lim, W.Y. Joe, G.J. Yun, Characterization of
jmrt.2021.07.016. process–deformation/damage property relationship of fused deposition modeling
[8] M. Hikmat, S. Rostam, Y.M. Ahmed, Investigation of tensile property-based (FDM) 3D-printed specimens, Addit. Manuf. 25 (2019) 532–544, https://doi.org/
Taguchi method of PLA parts fabricated by FDM 3D printing technology, Results in 10.1016/j.addma.2018.11.008.
Engineering 11 (2021), 100264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100264. [28] R. Ghandriz, K. Hart, J. Li, Extended finite element method (XFEM) modeling of
[9] P. Lesage, L. Dembinski, R. Lachat, S. Roth, Mechanical characterization of 3D fracture in additively manufactured polymers, Addit. Manuf. 31 (2020), https://
printed samples under vibration: effect of printing orientation and comparison with doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100945.
subtractive manufacturing, Results in Engineering 13 (2022), 100372, https://doi. [29] A.A. Soufivand, N. Abolfathi, S.A. Hashemi, S.J. Lee, Prediction of mechanical
org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100372. behavior of 3D bioprinted tissue-engineered scaffolds using finite element method
[10] N. Maqsood, M. Rimašauskas, Delamination observation occurred during the (FEM) analysis, Addit. Manuf. 33 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
flexural bending in additively manufactured PLA-short carbon fiber filament addma.2020.101181.
reinforced with continuous carbon fiber composite, Results in Engineering 11 [30] L. Fang, Y. Yan, O. Agarwal, J.E. Seppala, K.J. Hemker, S.H. Kang, Processing-
(2021), 100246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100246. structure-property relationships of bisphenol-A-polycarbonate samples prepared by
[11] A. Al Rashid, M. Koç, Fused filament fabrication process: a review of numerical fused filament fabrication, Addit. Manuf. 35 (2020), 101285, https://doi.org/
simulation techniques, Polymers 13 (2021) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.3390/ 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101285.
polym13203534. [31] M. Domingo-Espin, J.M. Puigoriol-Forcada, A.A. Garcia-Granada, J. Llumà,
[12] B. Brenken, E. Barocio, A. Favaloro, V. Kunc, R.B. Pipes, Fused filament fabrication S. Borros, G. Reyes, Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused
of fiber-reinforced polymers: a review, Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018) 1–16, https://doi. deposition modeling Polycarbonate parts, Mater. Des. 83 (2015) 670–677, https://
org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.01.002. doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.074.
[13] R. Comminal, M.P. Serdeczny, D.B. Pedersen, J. Spangenberg, Motion planning and [32] R. Quelho de Macedo, R.T.L. Ferreira, K. Jayachandran, Determination of
numerical simulation of material deposition at corners in extrusion additive mechanical properties of FFF 3D printed material by assessing void volume
manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 29 (2019), 100753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fraction, cooling rate and residual thermal stresses, Rapid Prototyp. J. 25 (2019)
addma.2019.06.005. 1661–1683, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-08-2018-0192.
[14] S.F. Costa, F.M. Duarte, J.A. Covas, Thermal conditions affecting heat transfer in [33] A. Al Rashid, M. Koç, Experimental validation of numerical model for
FDM/FFE: a contribution towards the numerical modelling of the process, Virtual thermomechanical performance of material extrusion additive manufacturing
Phys. Prototyp. 10 (2015) 35–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/ process: effect of process parameters, Polymers 14 (2022) 3482, https://doi.org/
17452759.2014.984042. 10.3390/polym14173482.
[15] A. D’Amico, A.M. Peterson, An adaptable FEA simulation of material extrusion [34] A. Al Rashid, M. Koç, Numerical simulations on thermomechanical performance of
additive manufacturing heat transfer in 3D, Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018) 422–430, 3D printed chopped carbon fiber-reinforced polyamide-6 composites: effect of infill
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.02.021. design, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1002/app.53081.
[16] F. Pigeonneau, D. Xu, M. Vincent, J.F. Agassant, Heating and flow computations of [35] A. S, D638-14, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics 1 (2006)
an amorphous polymer in the liquefier of a material extrusion 3D printer, Addit. 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1520/D0638-14.1.
Manuf. 32 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.101001. [36] A. Al Rashid, S. Abdul Qadir, M. Koç, Microscopic analysis on dimensional
[17] R. Comminal, M.P. Serdeczny, D.B. Pedersen, J. Spangenberg, Numerical modeling capability of fused filament fabrication three-dimensional printing process,
of the strand deposition flow in extrusion-based additive manufacturing, Addit. J. Elastomers Plastics (2021), 009524432110472, https://doi.org/10.1177/
Manuf. 20 (2018) 68–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.12.013. 00952443211047263.
[18] M.P. Serdeczny, R. Comminal, M.T. Mollah, D.B. Pedersen, J. Spangenberg, [37] E.R. Fitzharris, N. Watanabe, D.W. Rosen, M.L. Shofner, Effects of material
Numerical modeling of the polymer flow through the hot-end in filament-based properties on warpage in fused deposition modeling parts, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
material extrusion additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020), 101454, Technol. 95 (2018) 2059–2070, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1340-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101454.