Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Characterization of process–deformation/damage property relationship of T

fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D-printed specimens
Tomas Webbe Kerekesa, Hyoungjun Lima, Woong Yeol Joeb, Gun Jin Yuna,
⁎

a
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, Tennessee State University, TN, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, we investigated the process variable effects on the damage and deformational behavior of fused
Fused deposition modeling deposition modeling (FDM) three-dimensional (3D)-printed specimens by performing tensile tests and inverse
3D printing identification analyses. A characterization of the effects of different parametric variations of 3D-printed speci-
Failure mechanisms mens on fracture properties are a matter of considerable significance that are often overlooked. By combining
Damage model
the infill density and the layer thickness options that are available in the 3D printer machine, six groups with
Process-property relationship
different structural configurations can be obtained. The data and images obtained from experiments are em-
ployed to investigate the failure mechanism of 3D-printed specimens and demonstrate the relationship that exists
between structural variations and fracture mechanical properties. On the basis of experimental results, a Gurson-
type porous plasticity model was used within a 3D continuum finite element model to characterize the pro-
cess–damage parameter relationship through an inverse identification process.

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) is the process of building three-di-
mensional (3D) parts by adding layers of material [1], which offers a
more cost-efficient manufacturing method that enables flexibility in
geometrical complexity, reduces material waste, and has a shorter
concept-to-market time than the traditional subtractive manufacturing
method [2]. Aerospace manufacturing is the second largest market
where the AM technology is cost-effective because of its low volume,
customization, and high-value production chains [3,4]. One of the
promising applications of AM is a lattice structure with lightweight
morphing wing skins [5].
Considerable research has been conducted on fused deposition
modeling (FDM) process changes and their effects on mechanical
properties. Most studies considered FDM process variables such as
width, distance between filaments, path of the filament, layer thickness
(LT) [6–9], nozzle temperature, chamber temperature, first layer ad-
hesion to the printing table, layer design, and material feed rate
[10–17]. In addition, build direction and orientation are important
parameters that also influence the part's quality [18]. Because of lim-
ited space, we cited some representative works that investigated effects
of the infill density of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) on tensile
strength [19]; build orientation, LT, and feed rate of PLA on the tensile
and three-point flexural strength [20]; the printing temperature, LT,
and layer design of PLA on tensile strength and delamination energy
[11]; melting temperature, LT, and raster pattern orientation on tensile
strength [10]; LT and orientation on tensile modulus, strength, and
failure modes [21]; temperature, speed, infill direction, relative infill
density, LT, and perimeter on tensile strength and fracture properties
[22]; and part orientation, raster angles, raster width, and air gap on
tensile strength [23]. Interestingly, most studies focused on the uniaxial
tensile behavior by different manufacturing and experimental test
methods. It is worth noting that some of the salient features of FDM-
printed parts are low quality and structural defects (e.g., porosity),
which result due to the nature of fused filament-based manufacturing
[24,25]. This feature indeed hinders the usage of FDM-printed speci-
mens for structural applications. Therefore, more research on elim-
inating the surface and internal defects is needed to use them as
structural materials [26]. However, similar to previous research, we
focus on FDM materials printed with defects and their consequences on
mechanical properties and failure mechanisms to understand the root
causes for the failures. Understanding failure mechanisms is critical for
engineering the design of FDM materials and their applications. The
fracture properties of FDM-fabricated parts were also investigated in
available literature [21,22,27]. For example, LT and orientation were
considered for their effects on tensile strength and fractographic

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu Gwanak-ro 1, Building 301, Room 1308,
Seoul, 08826, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: gunjin.yun@snu.ac.kr (G.J. Yun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.11.008
Received 15 August 2018; Received in revised form 22 October 2018; Accepted 5 November 2018
Available online 15 December 2018
2214-8604/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
T. Webbe Kerekes et al.
Fig. 1. uPrint SE Plus default infill options for (a) LOW, (b) HIGH, and (c) SOLID.
Fig. 2. (a) Dimensions of the dog-bone specimen (all values are in millimeters) and (b) isometric view of the building orientation.
analysis [21]. Riddick et al. employed scanning electron microscopy
images to use fractographic methods. This helped to investigate the
effect of build direction and orientation on the failure mechanism and
mechanical response of ABS FDM-printed specimens [27]. However,
Torres et al. did not consider effects of infill density on failure me-
chanisms but considered various process variables to yield optimized
mechanical properties under tensile- and fracture-type loadings. Their
results focused on observations of fractography at the final failure state
[22] but not progressive failures.
Numerical material modeling and tools are required to engineer the
design of FDM-printed specimens. Research on finite element (FE)
modeling of 3D FDM-fabricated materials can be found in literature
[28–31]. Consequently, Bhandari et al. created a space frame lattice
and shell FE model to predict the linear elastic response of test coupons
made up of ULTEM 9095 to provide an efficient design and optimiza-
tion procedure for 3D-printed parts [28]. The material model they used
was the linear elastic isotropic model. Guessasma et al. presented ani-
sotropic damage of FDM-printed polymers under compressive loading
[29] using a 2D FE model with a simple damage kinetics model to
explain damage mechanisms [29]. X-ray micro computed tomography
(CT) and FE computations with a linear elastic isotropic material model
were also used to reveal the microstructure and pore connectivity-re-
lated stress heterogeneity [30]. Bellini et al. determined the stiffness
matrix of an ABS part built with the FDM technique combining data
from tensile test and FE analysis [31]. However, in available literature,
there is a lack of investigation on predicting the damage behavior of
FDM 3D-printed specimens. According to literature reviews, there is
considerable research related to FDM-printed specimens. Moreover,
there are numerous studies related to FDM technologies such as FE si-
mulations of the FDM process [32,33], improvements in FDM materials
by using property-altering additives [34], specification of material-
533
Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544
testing standards for AM technologies [35], applications of diverse
methodologies and model approaches [36], characterization of me-
chanical properties for FDM [37], experimentation and measurement
technologies [38], and characterization and modeling of FDM parts
[39]. As surveyed, there has been a lack of studies on the mechanical
properties, progressive failure mechanism, and predictive material
modeling of FDM-printed specimens.
This paper investigated the relationship of FDM process variables
with mechanical and fracture properties of the printed specimens by
uniaxial tensile tests and a predictive modeling method. A pore damage
plasticity model was applied, with parameters identified by the self-
optimizing inverse analysis method (Self-optim) [40] and FE model
updating (FEMU) method. In situ failure mechanism and progressions
both in external and in internal microstructures were captured by three
different methods, namely, digital image correlation (DIC), X-ray CT,
and microscopy. By analyzing the experimental observations and
identifications of damage model parameters, insights into the damage
mechanisms in relation to FDM process variables are possible. There-
fore, the present study helps to expedite the adoption of FDM because of
the valuable knowledge and increased understanding for the FDM parts.
2. Experimental tests
A single type of dog-bone specimen was used for performing the
uniaxial tensile test. For this test, 30 3D-printed specimens were divided
into six groups (five samples per group). Each group had a different
configuration of structural characteristics. However, geometrical di-
mensions and material compositions remained the same for all 30
specimens.
T. Webbe Kerekes et al. Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

Table 1
Six specimen types with different infill density and layer thickness options.
Infill density Layer thickness (LT)

Configuration 1 LOW 0.254 mm

Configuration 2 LOW 0.330 mm
Configuration 3 HIGH 0.254 mm
Configuration 4 HIGH 0.330 mm
Configuration 5 SOLID 0.254 mm
Configuration 6 SOLID 0.330 mm

Fig. 5. Top view of DIC cameras, load frame, and specimen.

Fig. 3. Cross-sectional view of a specimen after the test and schematic drawing
of sectional arrangement.
2.1. Processing variables and geometrical features of FDM 3D-printed
specimens
The 3D printing machine used was Stratasys® uPrint SE Plus. This
3D printer used ABS-M30 as the model material and Soluble Release
Support-30 (SR-30) as the support material. The maximum build size
was 203 mm x 203 mm x 152 mm (8 in. × 8 in. × 6 in.), and LT was
0.254 mm (0.10 in.) or 0.330 mm (0.13 in.). The ABS filament diameter
was 1.75 mm, and the nozzle diameter was 0.4 mm. The default tem-
perature settings were 300 °C for the nozzle and 80 °C for the en-
vironment (i.e., inside the printer chamber).
We considered only two processing variables: infill density and LT.
The infill density was LOW, HIGH, or SOLID. Images captured with a
10X augmentation of the three infill options are shown in Fig. 1. A dog-
bone specimen used for the uniaxial tensile test has dimensions as
shown in Fig. 2(a). The specimen thickness is 7 mm, and the geometric
dimensions are the same for all 30 specimens.
The other processing parameter is LT, which can be 0.330 mm or
0.254 mm. Therefore, six combinations were considered, where all
specimens were printed using ABS-M30 in the same horizontal building
orientation on the XY plane as depicted in Fig. 2(b). This orientation
allows the tension load application to be parallel to the layers. Thus,
delamination and fracture in the bonding of the layers are reduced.
Some 3D-printed parts have inherently anisotropic properties, meaning
they have higher strength and stiffness in the XY direction than in the Z
direction, as is the case for specimens used in this investigation.
Six groups of specimens with five samples per group were prepared.
Therefore, 30 specimens were tested. Because of negligible scattering of
test data, we decided to include five samples per case. Each group had
one combination of processing variables. The printing variable combi-
nations are detailed in Table 1.
The printing pattern is a default parameter that cannot be changed
in the uPrint SE Plus. This default setting results in an infill mesh-like
structure made by layer interleaves. The first layer is printed at a 45°
angle, and then, the second layer is printed on top of the first one at a
-45° angle. This process is repeated until all the infill layers required to
complete the part are printed.

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of printing order, pattern, and nozzle path for the (a) side shell, (b) bottom shell (SOLID), and (c) infill.

534
T. Webbe Kerekes et al. Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

Fig. 6. (a) Geometry division of the outer shell and infill for the FE model; (b) FE model.

Table 2
Material parameters to be determined.
E Young’s modulus y0 Initial yield stress
C, Kinematic hardening parameters ult Ultimate plastic strain (until hardening)
p
f0 Initial relative porous density q1, q3 Fitting parameters
N Mean value of the normal distribution of the nucleation strain sN Standard deviation of the normal distribution of the nucleation strain
fN Volume fraction of nucleating voids

Fig. 8. DIC matching with the FE model.

Fig. 7. Combined inverse characterization method for the experimental re-
sponse of the 3D-printed material.
The side shell printing process is depicted in Fig. 4(a), where (1),
(2), and (3) single filaments are printed as a continuous line following
The shells are printed parallel to the printing table. Side shells are
the specimen perimeter. In (4), the side shell is not complete, while (5)
composed of two walls and printed according to the model perimeter
shows the first side shell layer completed by printing the second fila-
direction. The top and bottom shells are printed in the same mesh
ment inner and alongside the previous one. These steps are repeated for
pattern as that in the infill. However, the top and bottom shells are
the entire process. There is a side shell layer for every layer of infill and
printed in SOLID density despite the choice of infill density as shown in
top/bottom shells.
Fig. 3.
The bottom shell printing process is depicted in Fig. 4(b), where (1),
A schematic representation of the complete specimen printing pro-
(2), and (3) single filaments are printed as a continuous line following
cess is shown in Fig. 4. In this schematic representation, the printing
the default pattern at a 45° angle. In (4), the bottom shell is not com-
order of the outer shells, as well as the infill, is numbered. The printing
plete, whereas in (5), it is complete. The second filament is printed on
pattern is drawn in the same way as the real printing pattern. However,
top of the previous one with the same pattern but in the opposite di-
the clearance between filaments is drawn much larger for schematic
rection at a -45° angle.
understanding purposes. The printing track direction, i.e., the path in
The infill printing process is also depicted in Fig. 4(c), where (1),
which the nozzle follows while depositing the extruded and melted
(2), and (3) filaments are printed as a continuous line following a de-
ABS, is marked with an arrow.
fault pattern at a 45° angle. In (4), a layer of infill is not complete,

535
T. Webbe Kerekes et al. Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

Fig. 9. Algorithmic procedures of (a) Self-optim and (b) FEMU.

whereas in (5), it is complete. The second filament is also printed on top
of the previous one with the same pattern but in the opposite direction
at a -45° angle. These steps are repeated until the printing reaches the
top shell step.
The top shell is printed in the same fashion as the bottom shell. The
top shell is printed on top of the last infill layer. Once the top shell is
complete, the printing process is also complete, and the specimen is
completely formed.
2.2. Tests and measurements
To perform the tensile test, a Psylotech® μTS – Meso Scale Universal

536
T. Webbe Kerekes et al. Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

Fig. 10. Tensile stress–strain curves of each configuration.

Table 3
Average values of mechanical properties from uniaxial tensile tests.
Infill Density Layer Thickness (mm) Ultimate Strength (MPa) Modulus of Toughness (Pa) Young's Modulus (MPa) Initial Yield Stress (MPa) Elongation at Break
(cov) (cov) (cov) (cov) (mm) (cov)

LOW 0.254 23.634 (0.008) 1.561 (0.148) 562.381 (0.018) 24.638 (0.013) 3.030 (0.119)
LOW 0.330 26.602 (0.004) 1.513 (0.104) 618.372 (0.041) 23.102 (0.015) 2.730 (0.075)
HIGH 0.254 26.333 (0.010) 1.509 (0.103) 774.062 (0.030) 24.920 (0.018) 2.600 (0.082)
HIGH 0.330 31.780 (0.008) 1.745 (0.044) 881.637 (0.031) 29.827 (0.006) 2.560 (0.032)
SOLID 0.254 34.740 (0.026) 1.974 (0.144) 1015.602 (0.017) 33.514 (0.013) 2.660 (0.120)
SOLID 0.330 34.718 (0.068) 1.982 (0.121) 1030.968 (0.102) 33.680 (0.061) 2.520 (0.103)

Load Frame – was used, which had 10 kN load capacity and wedge
tension-type grips. Psylotest™ software provided the time, loading, and
displacement history data. To perform the DIC test on the specimens, a
Dantec Dynamics® Q-400 System was used with two Allied Vision® MG-
201B ASG cameras and Ricoh® FL-CC2514-2 M lenses to capture the
images. All 30 specimens were coated on the face looking up with
Nabakem® LCP-77 Matt Black Lacquer Spray paint to create speckle
patterns.
The equipment was set up in such a way that the cameras have the
optimal angle and direction of view toward the specimen from the top.
The load frame and specimens were positioned horizontally. A picture
of the test setup with DIC is shown in Fig. 5.
In situ tensile tests were performed by applying a uniaxial tension
loading in the X direction. Simultaneously, the cameras from the DIC
system recorded a video of the test. Loading was applied at a speed of
1.0 mm/s until the specimen was fractured. Istra4D® software was used
to adjust the video recording settings and record the video at a sample
rate of 38 frames per second for DIC calculations. Psylotest™ was used
to record the displacement and force at a sampling frequency of 20 Hz.
2.3. In situ damage progression tests
was applied in displacement-controlled steps of 100 μm and reduced to
50 μm as the fractures progressed. This considerably low displacement
per step allowed the observer to scrutinize the progress of each fracture
meticulously. All fractures were recorded as the tensile loading was
applied because even one fracture could develop into the fracture point
of the specimen.
To observe how tensile loading affected the infill structure damage,
the X-ray CT test was conducted with pristine and damaged specimens
using Bruker® SkyScan 1278 with a flat panel CMOS sensor X-ray de-
tector and a nominal resolution of 52 μm.
3. Finite element model for 3D-Printed specimens
To predict the macroscale tensile force and displacement response,
we constructed a 3D FE model. The Gurson–Tvergaard (GT) damage
model was adopted for the model plastic and damage behavior of the
3D-printed specimen. Details of the FE model are described in this
section. Furthermore, material properties and model parameters were
linked to process variables through inverse analyses.

To observe the continuous damage formation on the surface, a se-
parate in situ tensile test was conducted under an Olympus® BXFM
microscope with a LMPLFLN 5X objective lens. The tensile loading was
applied at a speed of 0.5 mm/s until the first sign of fracture appeared.
From this point onward, tensile loading was applied in a moderate and
intermittent fashion according to the observer who was constantly
sweep searching the gage area with the microscope looking for new
signs of fractures. All potential fracture points were recorded as the
tensile loading was increased because some of these points would de-
velop into the final fracture. From that point onward, tensile loading
3.1. 3D continuum finite element model
The 3D cubic element C3D8 (8-node linear element) in ABAQUS
[41] was used. The tensile load was applied on the right end, and the
left end was fully fixed. Two different materials were defined for the
outer shell and infill, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6. The side shell
thickness was measured as 0.8 mm. The infill part had a lattice struc-
ture, but we assumed a solid homogeneous isotropic model because it
had a periodic lattice pattern. Furthermore, the outer shell material was
assumed to be the same as the SOLID infill material.

537
T. Webbe Kerekes et al. Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

behavior. The increment of the pore volume fraction is expressed as the

sum of the growth rate (dfgrowth ) of the existing pores and the nucleation
(dfnucleation ) of new pores.
df = dfgrowth + dfnucleation (2)
For existing pores, the Gurson model can account for the softening
effect of the material behavior by pores and at the same time predict the
evolution of pore growth rate during plastic deformation. Following the
law of conservation of mass, the existing pore growth rate is expressed
as
dfgrowth = (1 f )d pl: I (3)
where d and I represent the plastic strain increment and the identity
pl

tensor, respectively. The new pore nucleation is expressed in terms of

the equivalent plastic strain ( ¯mpl ) of the matrix as

dfnucleation = Ad¯mpl (4)

The normal distribution of the nucleation strain required is given as
2
fN 1 ¯mpl N
A= exp
sN 2 2 sN (5)
where N and sN are the mean and standard deviation of the normal
distribution of the nucleation strain and fN is the volume fraction of the
nucleated voids.
The hardening behavior is defined in a tabular form for the GT
model with ABAQUS. Because the goal in this section is to identify the
material parameters by using experimental data, minimizing the
number of parameters is efficient in the optimization process. As a so-
lution, the kinematic hardening parameters are assumed to replace the
tabular form under monotonic loading. The following
Armstrong–Frederick type model [43] was used for the kinematic
hardening.
2 p
dx = Cd x dp
3 (6)
where x is the back stress tensor, C and are the kinematic hardening
model parameters, d p is the increment of the plastic strain, and dp is
the increment of effective plastic strain. In its uniaxial form, for
monotonically increasing plastic strain, the back stress can be written in
Fig. 11. Digital image correlation engineering principal strain. (stress in MPa
terms of the magnitude x as
and strain): (a) (2.282, 0.001); (b) (28.500, 0.028); (c) (33.435, 0.043); (d)
(32.545, 0.057); (e) (31.751, 0.071); (f) (31.226, 0.080); (g) fracture. dx = Cd p x dp (7)
Integrating Eq. (7) with x zero at p = 0 , the uniaxial back stress is
3.2. Porous plasticity model for 3D-printed specimens
expressed as a function of the plastic strain.
According to 3D-printed specimen inspections, the materials seemed x =
C
(1 e
p
)
to have many continuous pores between filaments and discontinuous (8)
pores at the filament intersections. Therefore, we adopted a porous
By adding the back stress to the initial yield stress ( y0 ), yield
plasticity model in ABAQUS, which can empirically model the yield-
stresses corresponding to the plastic strains are calculated. Through this
hardening-softening behavior of 3D-printed models. This Gurson-type
process, the hardening curve with the kinematic hardening parameters
model can deal with nucleation, growth, and coalescence of the mi-
(C , , and pult ) in Eq. (8) is converted to a tabular form (i.e., yield
crovoids. The ductile failure behavior of the FDM-printed material stresses versus plastic strains) to be defined in the ABAQUS input file.
seemed to be very similar to what was observed in porous metallic Therefore, 11 parameters that determine elastoplastic and damage-in-
materials. A yield function of the GT model for porous plastic materials duced softening behavior are selected to predict the monotonic re-
[42] has the following form sponse. We assume that the Poisson ratio is 0.3 because it has a minimal
2 effect on the uniaxial response, which is summarized in Table 2.
eq 3q2 m
( eq, y, f, m) = + 2q1 f cosh (1 + q3 f 2 ) = 0
y 2 y (1) 3.3. Inverse identification of material-constitutive model parameters

where
3 dev dev
eq = 2 ij ij is the conventional von Mises equivalent stress, For material parameter estimation, we applied two different nu-
y = y is the yield stress of the matrix material without pores and
(¯ pl ) merical-experimental methodologies: 1) Self-optim [44] for linear
is a function of the equivalent plastic strain ( ¯ pl ), m = 3 ii is the hy-
1
elastic range and 2) FEMU [45] for damage and plastic range. The
drostatic mean stress, and q1, q2 , and q3 are the model constants. As the hybrid approach was used because Self-optim needs to conduct FE si-
ratio of the pores inside the material increases, the pore volume fraction mulations under both force and displacement boundary conditions. The
increases and the yield function decreases. This effect enables softening experiment in our study is the uniaxial tensile test; hence, it is difficult

538
T. Webbe Kerekes et al. Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

Fig. 12. Progressive failure images from in situ tensile test under the microscope. (loading [N], displacement [mm]) (a) (0.0, 0.0); (b) (414.173, 0.450); (c) (877.122,
0.9); (d) (1244.087, 1.45); (e) (1192.363, 2.15); (f) (1130.997, 2.8).

material properties and are used to construct an objective function to

determine the true material properties. The objective function of Self-
optim is defined as
n
RMSEi (F , D) + MAEi (F , D)
fSO (pk : k = 1, …, m) =
i=1 R i 2 (F , D ) + 1
n
RMSEi (F , D ) + MAEi (F , D )
+
i=1 R i 2 (F , D ) + 1 (9)

Fig. 13. Progression of the fracture.
to obtain converged solutions under force boundary conditions. Details
on Self-optim can be referred to in literature [44,46]. Therefore, after
the yielding point, we applied the FEMU approach where only the
displacement boundary is imposed. This combined approach is depicted
in Fig. 7, where Self-optim identifies Young's modulus and FEMU
identifies other plastic and damage parameters. In both inverse ana-
lyses, force and displacement data, as well as DIC data at five material
points, are shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 9 (a) shows the overall algorithmic procedures of Self-optim,
whereas the algorithmic procedures of the FEMU approach are shown
in Fig. 9(b). In Self-optim, the force and displacement profiles have to
be obtained from the test specimen before running the Self-optim si-
mulation. Although the experiment in this paper is a uniaxial tensile
where RMSE , MAE , and R are the root mean square error, the mean
average error, and correlation for full-field stresses and strains ex-
tracted from two FE simulations, respectively. Furthermore, pk is the
material property to be identified, and n is the number of load or time
steps used to increase sensitivity for the optimization problem. The
notation used in the objective function can be expressed as (F , D) ,
which indicates statistical differences (i.e., errors) between force-driven
and displacement-driven simulations, respectively. Superscripts and
in the statistical indices denote the differences in terms of stresses and
strains, respectively.
In FEMU, the reaction force response is obtained through the dis-
placement-driven analysis. The obtained reaction force data are com-
pared with those from experimental tests. In this paper, an objective
function form used for FEMU was defined as
fFEMU (pk : k = 1, …, m)
n
RMSEi (RF sim RF exp) + MAEi (RF sim RF exp)
=
Ri (RF sim RF exp)
i=1

test, a complex tested structure under combined loadings is more de- (10)
sirable for Self-optim as long as both boundary force and displacements
The Chaotic Firefly Algorithm (CFA) [47,48] was selected to search
can be measured from a single test. As shown in Fig. 9 (a), force and
for the optimal material properties because it is efficient in searching
displacement data from the single experimental test are separately
for a global optimizer. The CFA is one of the metaheuristic optimization
imposed to two parallel FE simulation models, whereby two sets of full-
algorithms that mimics the social behavior of fireflies [48].
field stresses and strains are extracted. The differences in full-field
stresses and strains between two FE simulations are due to incorrect

539
T. Webbe Kerekes et al.
Fig. 14. Computed tomography scan images.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Effects of 3D-printing process variables on mechanical properties
Tensile stress and strain curves were obtained for the six groups
with different combinations of FDM process variables as shown in
Fig. 10. The stress–strain curves were characterized by five properties:
1) Young’s modulus, 2) initial yield stress, 3) ultimate strength, 4)
modulus of toughness, and 5) elongation at break (EB). The initial yield
stress was obtained by the 0.2% offset yield strength method. The
modulus of toughness was obtained by calculating the area under the
stress–strain curve up to the fracture point. As seen in Fig. 10, there was
considerable variation depending on the 3D printing parameters even
when the bulk material properties were the same. This depicts the
importance of understanding the effects of printing process variables on
the mechanical properties.
The average values obtained from the results of uniaxial tensile tests
are shown in Table 3. Every property is analyzed for each printing
configuration.
The tensile test results showed the performance of each printing
540
Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544
configuration. Above all, infill density was the most relevant parameter
affecting the specimen properties. As shown in Table 3, Young’s mod-
ulus, initial yield stress, ultimate strength, and toughness increased
with an increase in infill density. Torres et al. obtained the same results
and explained that this is attributed simply to the fact that the more the
materials, the more is the strength and stiffness [22]. The same results
were also observed in available studies [19,49,50]. However, compared
to other properties, the increase in toughness per infill density was
relatively small because EB decreased as the infill density increased. It
is worth noting that infill density affecting EB has not been reported in
available literature. The coefficient of variation (cov) for properties due
to infill density changes did not have a clear regular tendency.
LT showed a moderate influence in affecting the specimen’s prop-
erties. Young’s modulus was 0.33 mm, which was higher than the value
of 0.254 mm. In addition, pores were considered premature material
flaws. Because smaller thickness contributed to more pores, Young’s
modulus decreased. The same result was observed in the study by
Carneiro et al., where Young’s modulus increased with a higher LT
[50]. The ultimate strength increased with 0.330 mm LT, except for the
case with SOLID density. However, the difference is minimal. Torres
T. Webbe Kerekes et al.
Fig. 15. Parameters’ results from inverse identification analyses.
et al. and Carneiro et al. obtained the same results in their studies
[22,50]. The opposite result was obtained when the ultimate strength
increased with a lower LT [10,13,21,51,52]. The initial yield stress
slightly increased as the LT increased for SOLID and HIGH, except for
LOW. This is because LOW specimen yielding is governed more by the
infill density than by the LT. As LT increased, the toughness slightly
increased for HIGH and SOLID, except for LOW. EB slightly decreased
as the LT increased for all infill densities. Chacón et al. and Shubham
et al. also obtained the same results [20,52]. As shown in Table 3, cov
values for ultimate strength, modulus of toughness, and EB when LT
was 0.254 mm were much larger than those when the LT was 0.3 mm.
This implies that a smaller LT provides larger variability at the post-
yielding stage. However, cov differences in Young’s modulus and initial
yield stress between two thicknesses were irregular because these
properties characterized the initial deformation stage.
4.2. Progressive failure mechanisms
Failure mechanisms of 3D-printed specimens were investigated by
three experimental techniques (i.e., DIC and in situ observations by
optical microscopy and micro CT). A series of images from DIC are
shown in Fig. 11, which belong to a specimen with SOLID infill density
and 0.254 mm LT. (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) start from 0.5 s and reach up
to 2.5 s with a 0.5 s interval. Furthermore, the contours corresponded to
engineering principal strains. Although the specimen is under uniaxial
constant strain loading, strain distributions are nonuniform along the
longitudinal direction, which is attributed to 3D-printed filament con-
figurations [53]. The strains become concentrated at equally spaced
multiple locations along the side free edge as the loading increases.
These locations are where premature pores are located at the inter-
sections of side shells and top shells, and the fracture occurred at one of
the locations. Others also reported similar heterogeneous strain dis-
tributions on the uniaxial tensile test specimen [54] and fracture
toughness samples [55]. However, our results showed additional pro-
gressive failure patterns.
A series of fractured side edge location images for a SOLID and LT
541
Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544
0.330 mm specimen are shown in Fig. 12. A fracture location was
identified and progressively monitored up to the fracture moment. As
shown in Figs. 12 and 13, the fracture apparently occurred at a pre-
mature pore location. The observed area corresponded to the edge of
the gage section (i.e., where the side shell meets the top shell).
Fig. 12(c) shows necking and heavy local strain of the side shell fila-
ment as indicated by the color change to a whitish tone (i.e., stress-
whitening zone with voids). Fig. 12(d) shows top shell tearing in the
void made by the side shell and the top shell. Fig. 12(e) shows the side
shell filament fracture, fracture progression from side shells to top shell
void, and nucleation of new pores at the interface between two adjacent
top shell filaments. Fig. 12(f) shows that fractures from the top shell
filament bonding and top shell to side shell void are grown and become
united. Moreover, the side shell filament is completely fractured.
The fracture progression in accordance to the loading vs. displace-
ment graph is shown in Fig. 13. Microscopic fracture images are located
at their corresponding places in the curve. Although this failure me-
chanism was observed on the surface, similar fracture mechanisms are
expected through the thickness due to the presence of similar pores
through the thickness.
Therefore, specimens were scanned using the X-ray CT scan device
to observe the behavior of the infill filaments under tensile loading. A
CT scan can show the inside of the specimen without cutting or altering
its structure. Six specimens were scanned: two for each infill density
(i.e., LOW, HIGH, and SOLID). Three specimens were previously sub-
jected to a tensile loading of 850 N, while the other three remained
unaltered. All specimens were printed with a 0.254 mm LT. A com-
parison between pristine and damaged specimens is shown in Fig. 14,
where the ± 45° printing pattern cannot be seen in the pristine setup
because they are sectioned images.
As shown in Fig. 14, premature pores equally spaced between infill
and side shell were observed. There were premature uneven air gaps
between two side shell filaments even in the pristine state. These air
gaps were also partly observed between ± 45° infill filaments. At a
tensile loading of 850 N, necking and delaminations between long-
itudinal filaments of the side shell were observed. For SOLID and HIGH
T. Webbe Kerekes et al.
Fig. 16. Comparisons of the force–displacement curves between tests and simulations.
infill densities, single necking of the longitudinal filaments was ob-
served, while multiple necking was observed for the LOW infill density.
In case of infill filaments, the delamination and necking also occurred at
the loaded state.
Three different experimental methods were used in this work to
inspect the specimen structure and analyze its behavior under tensile
loading. Applying different methods to obtain the failure mechanism
revealed that the tensile loading unevenly affects each different section
of the specimen structure. This is because the specimen structure sec-
tions are built in different orientations and patterns. The failure me-
chanism behaves in a chain reaction among the specimen structure
sections and the fracture is initiated at the side shells. Consequently, it
develops to the top and bottom shells until the infill, which is the last
section where the fracture develops.
4.3. Process–property relationship by inverse parameter identification
As this was the first-time application of the GT model to FDM 3D-
printed specimens, we characterized the damage mechanisms through
careful and multiple experimental techniques. From the observed
542
Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544
damage mechanisms, we ensured that the GT porous plasticity model is
suitable for FDM 3D-printed parts. To link the 3D printing process
variables to properties and parameters defined in the model, we con-
ducted inverse identification analyses through the approaches ex-
plained in Section 3. The identification results are summarized in
Fig. 15, where the mean values and the standard error (= /n2 ) of each
identified parameter are indicated.
Surprisingly, as the infill density and LT decreased, the identified
initial relative porous density ( f0 ) increased. These identified results
matched well with actual material states of FDM 3D-printed specimens.
Moreover, the volume fraction of newly nucleating voids ( fN ) also in-
creased as the LT and infill density increased, with the exception of
SOLID and 0.33 mm LT. It is natural that LOW and 0.254 mm LT
samples had more initial voids than newly nucleating voids. The mean
nucleation strain ( N ) showed an increasing tendency as the LT and
infill density decreased, which matches the actual ductility between
samples. The exception of LT and SOLID infill density seemed to be due
to a trade-off between N and fN , as well as the relative brittleness of
behavior. Considering the results of all these analyses, the GT porous
plasticity model is validated as a predictive model for FDM 3D-printed
T. Webbe Kerekes et al. Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544

Table 4
Property comparison between the simulation and experiment.
Infill Layer Classification Young s Initial Ultimate Modulus of
density thickness (mm) modulus yield stress strength toughness
(MPa ) (MPa ) (MPa ) (MPa )

SOLID 0.330 Simulation 1018.213 35.936 35.936 2.036

Experiment 1030.968 33.680 34.718 1.982
Error (%) 1.237 6.698 3.508 2.725
SOLID 0.254 Simulation 986.069 33.153 34.894 2.097
Experiment 1015.602 33.514 34.740 1.974
Error (%) 2.908 1.077 0.443 6.231
HIGH 0.330 Simulation 902.27 31.399 31.416 1.723
Experiment 881.637 29.827 31.780 1.745
Error (%) 2.340 5.270 1.145 1.261
HIGH 0.254 Simulation 807.930 25.221 26.010 1.514
Experiment 774.062 24.920 26.333 1.509
Error (%) 4.375 1.208 1.227 0.331
LOW 0.330 Simulation 643.84 22.920 26.112 1.435
Experiment 618.37 23.102 26.602 1.513
Error (%) 4.119 0.788 1.842 5.155
LOW 0.254 Simulation 587.14 23.980 24.224 1.603
Experiment 562.38 24.638 23.634 1.561
Error (%) 4.403 2.671 2.496 2.691

specimens.
All the curves from simulations with identified parameters match
the experimental curves as shown in Fig. 16.
As shown in Table 4, for each of the 3D printing process config-
urations, the properties were obtained both experimentally and nu-
merically. In all cases, the percentage error between the simulation and
experimental results was sufficiently small. Because of the inverse
identification analyses, the 3D printing process variables were linked to
numerical models that enabled 3D-printed specimen and structure de-
sign.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, we evaluated the effects of FDM 3D printing process
variables on mechanical properties. The progressive fracture me-
chanism was elucidated by three experimental techniques: 1) DIC, 2) X-
ray CT, and 3) in situ tensile testing by optical microscopy. On the basis
of the observed failure mechanisms of the FDM 3D-printed specimens,
we selected and validated the GT porous plasticity model to predict the
experimental elasto-plastic damage behavior. Because of an experi-
mental–numerical inverse analysis, the material properties and model
parameters were successfully identified and linked to the 3D printing
process variables to design 3D-printed specimens and structures.
Infill density (LOW, HIGH, and SOLID) and LT (i.e., 0.33 and
0.254 mm), which are 3D printing process variables, were varied to
produce six groups of uniaxial tensile test specimens. Five mechanical
properties – Young’s modulus, initial yield stress, ultimate strength,
modulus of toughness, and EB – were evaluated. Young’s modulus, in-
itial yield stress, ultimate strength, and toughness increased with an
increase in infill density. EB decreased as the infill density increased. LT
showed a moderate influence affecting the specimen’s properties, where
an increasing LT apparently increased Young’s modulus, while it de-
creased EB. We found that smaller LT increased uncertainties (i.e.,
variability) of postyielding properties.
With regard to progressive failure, the failure was initiated by strain
concentrations at the premature pores mostly located at the intersection
between infill and side shell filaments. The pore size within the infill
filaments increased as the loading increased. The damage was further
progressed with necking and tearing of filaments and nucleation of
pores between filaments. The GT porous plasticity model with a 3D
continuum FE model was validated to predict the macroscopic elasto-
plastic damage behavior of FDM 3D-printed specimens. The identified
parameters of the GT porous plasticity model matched the actual
material states in terms of initial relative porous density ( f0 ), the vo-
lume fraction of newly nucleating voids ( fN ), and mean nucleation
strain ( N ). Through an inverse identification analysis, the proces-
s–property relationship was established using the GT porous plasticity
model. However, the macroscale continuum modeling approach could
not predict nonuniform strains observed in the experiment. To predict
the nonuniform stress distributions and explicit progressive failure,
further research on the development of multiscale FE models capable of
analyzing the preselected structure and patterns of FDM-printed
structures is needed, which involves thermo-induced residual stress
predictions, consideration of nonlinearity, explicit damage modeling,
etc.
Acknowledgments
This research is based on the work supported by the Air Force Office
of Scientific Research under award number FA2386-17-1-4081. This
work was also supported by the Institute of Advanced Aerospace
Technology and the Institute of Engineering Research at Seoul National
University. Authors are grateful for their support.
References
[1] A. Gebhardt, Rapid Prototyping–Rapid Tooling–Rapid Manufacturing, Carl Hanser,
München, 2007.
[2] I. Gibson, D.W. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies, (2010)
Google Scholar.
[3] M. Gebler, A.J.S. Uiterkamp, C. Visser, A global sustainability perspective on 3D
printing technologies, Energy Policy 74 (2014) 158–167.
[4] Kianian, B., Wohlers Report 2017: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of
the Industry, Annual Worldwide Progress Report: Chapters titles: The Middle East,
and other countries. 22 ed ed. 2017, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, USA: Wohlers
Associates, Inc.
[5] B. Jenett, et al., Digital morphing wing: active wing shaping concept using com-
posite lattice-based cellular structures, Soft Rob. 4 (1) (2017) 33–48.
[6] R. Anitha, S. Arunachalam, P. Radhakrishnan, Critical parameters influencing the
quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 118
(1-3) (2001) 385–388.
[7] K. Chin Ang, et al., Investigation of the mechanical properties and porosity re-
lationships in fused deposition modelling-fabricated porous structures, Rapid
Prototyp. J. 12 (2) (2006) 100–105.
[8] J. Kotlinski, Mechanical properties of commercial rapid prototyping materials,
Rapid Prototyp. J. 20 (6) (2014) 499–510.
[9] A.K. Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Experimental investigation and empirical
modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement, J. Adv. Res. 3 (1)
(2012) 81–90.
[10] Ö. Bayraktar, et al., Experimental study on the 3D‐printed plastic parts and pre-
dicting the mechanical properties using artificial neural networks, Polym. Adv.
Technol. 28 (8) (2017) 1044–1051.

543
T. Webbe Kerekes et al.
[11] M. Spoerk, et al., Parametric optimization of intra‐and inter‐layer strengths in parts
produced by extrusion‐based additive manufacturing of poly (lactic acid), J. Appl.
Polym. Sci. 134 (41) (2017) 45401.
[12] J.-W. Tseng, et al., Screw extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK, Mater.
Design 140 (2018) 209–221.
[13] M. Spoerk, et al., Effect of the printing bed temperature on the adhesion of parts
produced by fused filament fabrication, Plastics Rubber Compos. 47 (1) (2018)
17–24.
[14] M. Spoerk, et al., Optimisation of the adhesion of polypropylene-based materials
during extrusion-based additive manufacturing, Polymers 10 (5) (2018) 490.
[15] V. Kishore, et al., Infrared preheating to improve interlayer strength of big area
additive manufacturing (BAAM) components, Addit. Manuf. 14 (2017) 7–12.
[16] M. Spoerk, et al., Polypropylene filled with glass spheres in extrusion-based additive
manufacturing: effect of filler size and printing chamber temperature, Macromol.
Mater. Eng. 303 (7) (2018).
[17] C.B. Sweeney, et al., Welding of 3D-printed carbon nanotube-polymer composites
by locally induced microwave heating, Sci. Adv. 3 (6) (2017).
[18] A. Farzadi, et al., Effect of layer thickness and printing orientation on mechanical
properties and dimensional accuracy of 3D printed porous samples for bone tissue
engineering, PloS one 9 (9) (2014) e108252.
[19] C. Alvarez, et al., Investigating the influence of infill percentage on the mechanical
properties of fused deposition modelled ABS parts, Ingeniería e Investigación 36 (3)
(2016) 110–116.
[20] J. Chacón, et al., Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition
modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal
selection, Mater. Design 124 (2017) 143–157.
[21] B. Rankouhi, et al., 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.
[22] J. Torres, et al., An approach for mechanical property optimization of fused de-
position modeling with polylactic acid via design of experiments, Rapid Prototyp. J.
22 (2) (2016) 387–404.
[23] F. Rayegani, G.C. Onwubolu, Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter
prediction and optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and
differential evolution (DE), Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73 (1-4) (2014) 509–519.
[24] E.G. Gordeev, A.S. Galushko, V.P. Ananikov, Improvement of quality of 3D printed
objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition mod-
eling, PloS One 13 (6) (2018) e0198370.
[25] L.M. Galantucci, F. Lavecchia, G. Percoco, Experimental study aiming to enhance
the surface finish of fused deposition modeled parts, CIRP Ann. 58 (1) (2009)
189–192.
[26] M.K. Agarwala, et al., Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition,
Rapid Prototyp. J. 2 (4) (1996) 4–19.
[27] J.C. Riddick, et al., Fractographic analysis of tensile failure of acrylonitrile-buta-
diene-styrene fabricated by fused deposition modeling, Addit. Manuf. 11 (2016)
49–59.
[28] S. Bhandari, R. Lopez-Anido, Finite element analysis of thermoplastic polymer ex-
trusion 3D printed material for mechanical property prediction, Addit. Manuf. 22
(2018) 187–196.
[29] S. Guessasma, et al., Anisotropic damage inferred to 3D printed polymers using
fused deposition modelling and subject to severe compression, Eur. Polym. J. 85
(2016) 324–340.
[30] S. Guessasma, S. Belhabib, H. Nouri, Significance of pore percolation to drive ani-
sotropic effects of 3D printed polymers revealed with X-ray mu-tomography and
finite element computation, Polymer 81 (2015) 29–36.
[31] A. Bellini, S. Güçeri, Mechanical characterization of parts fabricated using fused
deposition modeling, Rapid Prototyp. J. 9 (4) (2003) 252–264.
[32] Y. Zhang, K. Chou, A parametric study of part distortions in fused deposition
544
Additive Manufacturing 25 (2019) 532–544
modelling using three-dimensional finite element analysis, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
Part B-J. Eng. Manuf. 222 (8) (2008) 959–967.
[33] Y. Zhang, Y.K. Chou, Three-dimensional finite element analysis simulations of the
fused deposition modelling process, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B-J. Eng. Manuf.
220 (10) (2006) 1663–1671.
[34] A.R. Torrado, et al., Characterizing the effect of additives to ABS on the mechanical
property anisotropy of specimens fabricated by material extrusion 3D printing,
Addit. Manuf. 6 (2015) 16–29.
[35] D.A. Roberson, et al., Comparison of stress concentrator fabrication for 3D printed
polymeric izod impact test specimens, Addit. Manuf. 7 (2015) 1–11.
[36] S.-H. Ahn, et al., Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS,
Rapid Prototyp. J. 8 (4) (2002) 248–257.
[37] S.-I. Park, et al., Effective mechanical properties of lattice material fabricated by
material extrusion additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 1 (2014) 12–23.
[38] Y. Jin, et al., Quantitative analysis of surface profile in fused deposition modelling,
Add Manuf 8 (2015) 142–148.
[39] S.-i. Park, D.W. Rosen, Quantifying effects of material extrusion additive manu-
facturing process on mechanical properties of lattice structures using as-fabricated
voxel modeling, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 265–273.
[40] G.J. Yun, S. Shang, A self-optimizing inverse analysis method for estimation of
cyclic elasto-plasticity model parameters, Int. J. Plast. 27 (4) (2011) 576–595.
[41] Karlsson Hibbett, Sorensen, ABAQUS/Standard: User’S Manual vol1, Hibbitt,
Karlsson & Sorensen, 1998.
[42] A.L. Gurson, Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth:
part i—yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media, J. Eng. Mater.
Technol. 99 (1) (1977) 2–15.
[43] P.J. Armstrong, C.O. Frederick, A Mathematical Representation of the Multiaxial
Bauschinger Effect, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, 1966.
[44] G.J. Yun, S. Shang, A self-optimizing inverse analysis method for estimation of
cyclic elasto-plasticity model parameters, Int. J. Plast. 27 (2011) 576–595.
[45] M. Springmann, M. Kuna, Identification of material parameters of the
Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman model by combined experimental and numerical
techniques, Comput. Mater. Sci. 33 (4) (2005) 501–509.
[46] G.J. Yun, S. Shang, A New inverse method for the uncertainty quantification of
spatially varying random material properties, Int. J. Uncertainty Quant. 6 (6)
(2016) 515–531.
[47] X.-S. Yang, Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation, Int.
J.Bio-Inspired Comput. 2 (2) (2010) 78–84.
[48] A.H. Gandomi, et al., Firefly algorithm with chaos, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer.
Simul. 18 (1) (2013) 89–98.
[49] M. Fernandez-Vicente, et al., Effect of infill parameters on tensile mechanical be-
havior in desktop 3D printing, 3D Printing Additive Manuf. 3 (3) (2016) 183–192.
[50] O.S. Carneiro, A. Silva, R. Gomes, Fused deposition modeling with polypropylene,
Mater. Design 83 (2015) 768–776.
[51] W. Wu, et al., Influence of layer thickness and raster angle on the mechanical
properties of 3D-printed PEEK and a comparative mechanical study between PEEK
and ABS, Materials 8 (9) (2015) 5834–5846.
[52] P. Shubham, A. Sikidar, T. Chand, The influence of layer thickness on mechanical
properties of the 3D printed ABS polymer by fused deposition modeling, Key Eng.
Mater. (2016) 706.
[53] J.T. Cantrell, et al., Experimental characterization of the mechanical properties of
3D-printed ABS and polycarbonate parts, Rapid Prototyp. J. 23 (4) (2017) 811–824.
[54] H. Rezayat, et al., Structure–mechanical property relationship in fused deposition
modelling, Mater. Sci. Technol. 31 (8) (2015) 895–903.
[55] J. Gardan, A. Makke, N. Recho, Improving the fracture toughness of 3D printed
thermoplastic polymers by fused deposition modeling, Int. J. Fract. 210 (1-2)
(2018) 1–15.