Investigating the effect of fabrication temperature on mechanical properties of fused deposition modeling parts using X-ray computed tomography

  • Amir Reza ZekavatEmail author
  • Anton Jansson
  • Joakim Larsson
  • Lars Pejryd
Open Access


Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is one of the most common additive manufacturing (AM) techniques for fabricating prototypes as well as functional parts. In this technique, several parameters may influence the part quality and consequently mechanical properties of fabricated components. In this paper, an experimental investigation on effects of fabrication temperature as one of the influential parameters on mechanical properties of manufactured parts is presented. A series of specimens fabricated at temperatures ranging from 180 to 260 C were used for this investigation. X-ray computed tomography (CT) was used in order to non-destructively analyze the internal geometry of the specimens especially the bond between extruded filaments. Finally, the specimens were subjected to a uniaxial tensile load for evaluation of mechanical properties. The results showed that the specimens fabricated at lower temperatures have relatively lower tensile strength despite their considerably higher strain at break. In addition, the specimens fabricated at higher temperature range had significantly higher tensile strength because of the better bond between extruded filaments. The different mechanical responses were highly related to the internal geometry of the specimens and not necessarily the porosity. CT showed great potential as a non-destructive tool for investigation and development of FDM process.


Fused deposition modeling Computed tomography Polylactic acid Additive manufacturing 



  1. 1.
    Leering R (2017) 3D printing: a threat to global tradeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gebhardt A (2011) Understanding additive manufacturing, 1st edn. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co, KG. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2009) Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing, 2nd edn. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, Berlin. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Too M, Leong K, Chua C, Du Z, Yang S, Cheah C, Ho S (2002) Investigation of 3D non-random porous structures by fused deposition modelling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19(3):217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zein I, Hutmacher DW, Tan KC, Teoh SH (2002) Fused deposition modeling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 23(4):1169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galantucci L, Bodi I, Kacani J, Lavecchia F (2015) Analysis of dimensional performance for a 3D open-source printer based on fused deposition modeling technique. Procedia CIRP 28:82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pfeifer T, Koch C, Van Hulle L, Capote GAM, Rudolph N (2016) Optimization of the FDM additive manufacturing process. In: Proceedings of the annual technical conference (ANTEC) of the society of plastics engineers, Indianapolis, pp 22–29Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL (2015) Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters: a review of current research and future prospects. Adv Manuf:42–53Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaveh M, Badrossamay M, Foroozmehr E, Hemasian Etefagh A (2015) Optimization of the printing parameters affecting dimensional accuracy and internal cavity for HIPS material used in fused deposition modeling processes. J Mater Process Technol 226:280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Villalpando L, Eiliat H, Urbanic RJ (2014) An optimization approach for components built by fused deposition modeling with parametric internal structures. Proced CIRP 17:800. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bellehumeur C, Li L (2004) Modeling of bond formation between polymer filaments in the fused deposition modeling process. J Manuf Process 6(2):170–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Domingo-Espin M, Puigoriol-Forcada JM, Garcia-Granada AA, Llumà J, Borros S, Reyes G (2015) Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused deposition modeling Polycarbonate parts. Mater Des 83:670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koch C, Van Hulle L, Rudolph N (2017) Investigation of mechanical anisotropy of the fused filament fabrication process via customized tool path generation. Addit Manuf 16:138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chin Ang K, Fai Leong K, Kai Chua C, Chandrasekaran M (2006) Investigation of the mechanical properties and porosity relationships in fused deposition modelling-fabricated porous structures. Rapid Prototyp J 12(2):100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seppala JE, Migler KD (2016) Infrared thermography of welding zones produced by polymer extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 12:71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agarwala MK, Jamalabad VR, Langrana NA, Safari A, Whalen PJ, Danforth SC (1996) Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition. Rapid Prototyp J 2(4):4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thompson A, Maskery I, Leach RK (2016) X-ray computed tomography for additive manufacturing: a review. Measur Sci Technol 27(7):072001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nouri H, Guessasma S, Belhabib S (2016) Structural imperfections in additive manufacturing perceived from the X-ray micro-tomography perspective. J Mater Process Technol 234:113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ultimaker, Technical data sheet PLA Version 3.003. Technical report (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Organization for Standardization. ISO 527-2:2012 Plastics – Determination of tensile properties – Part 2: Test conditions for moulding and extrusion plastics (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Örebro universitet Akademin för Naturvetenskap och TeknikÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations