Effects of material properties on warpage in fused deposition modeling parts

  • Emily R. Fitzharris
  • Narumi Watanabe
  • David W. Rosen
  • Meisha L. ShofnerEmail author


Fused deposition modeling (FDM) offers many advantages over conventional manufacturing methods, but it is limited by the number of materials available. Extending FDM technology to semicrystalline polymers has been challenging due to the crystallization that occurs during cooling which results in FDM part warpage. Previous work used process simulation models to study the effects of material parameters and FDM process variables on the part warpage seen using polypropylene (PP). In this work, the process simulation models were adapted to investigate warpage of FDM parts made with a high-performance semicrystalline polymer, polyphenylene sulfide (PPS). Material parameters in the PPS process simulation models were individually changed to the PP values to investigate which material parameters cause PP to exhibit higher warpage than PPS. Material parameters of interest included coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), thermal conductivity, heat capacity, and Young’s modulus. Additional material parameters based on material property modification through the addition of fillers were investigated in order to establish the relationship between material parameters and warpage values. The simulation models suggested that the CTE has the largest impact on FDM part warpage. Decreasing the CTE in the simulation model resulted in a decrease in the FDM part warpage by the same factor.


Additive manufacturing Fused deposition modeling Polyphenylene sulfide Coefficient of thermal expansion Shrinkage 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from Kimberly-Clark Corporation and donation of PPS from Technical Polymers for the capillary rheology experiments.


This study was funded by Kimberly-Clark Corporation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2005) Additive manufacturing technologies: rapid prototyping to direct digital manufacturing, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gao W, Zhang YB, Ramanujan D, Ramani K, Chen Y, Williams CB, Wang CCL, Shin YC, Zhang S, Zavattieri PD (2015) The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput Aided Design 69:65–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turner BN, Strong R, Gold SA (2014) A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling. Rapid Prototyp J 20(3):192–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dawoud M, Taha I, Ebeid SJ (2016) Mechanical behaviour of ABS: an experimental study using FDM and injection moulding techniques. J Manuf Process 21:39–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee J, Huang A (2013) Fatigue analysis of FDM materials. Rapid Prototyp J 19(4):291–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ziemian C, Sharma M, Ziemian S (2012) Anisotropic mechanical properties of ABS parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling. In: Gokcek M (ed) Mechanical Engineering. INTECH.
  7. 7.
    Rubinstein M, Colby RH (2003) Polymer physics. Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Painter PC, Coleman MM (2008) Essentials of polymer science and engineering. DEStech Publications, Inc, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Santis F, Pantani R, Speranza V, Titomanlio G (2010) Analysis of shrinkage development of a semicrystalline polymer during injection molding. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(5):2469–2476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shofner ML, Lozano K, Rodriguez-Macias FJ, Barrera EV (2003) Nanofiber-reinforced polymers prepared by fused deposition modeling. J Appl Polym Sci 89(11):3081–3090. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhong WH, Li F, Zhang ZG, Song LL, Li ZM (2001) Short fiber reinforced composites for fused deposition modeling. Mat Sci Eng A Struct 301(2):125–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tekinalp HL, Kunc V, Velez-Garcia GM, Duty CE, Love LJ, Naskar AK, Blue CA, Ozcan S (2014) Highly oriented carbon fiber-polymer composites via additive manufacturing. Compos Sci Technol 105:144–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ning FD, Cong WL, Qiu JJ, Wei JH, Wang SR (2015) Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modeling. Compos Part B Eng 80:369–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quan ZZ, Wu A, Keefe M, Qin XH, JY Y, Suhr J, Byun JH, Kim BS, Chou TW (2015) Additive manufacturing of multidirectional preforms for composites: opportunities and challenges. Mater Today 18(9):503–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar S, Kruth JP (2010) Composites by rapid prototyping technology. Mater Design 31(2):850–856. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gray RW, Baird DG, Bohn JH (1998) Effects of processing conditions on short TLCP fiber reinforced FDM parts. Rapid Prototyp J 4(1):14–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korpela J, Kokkari A, Korhonen H, Malin M, Narhi T, Seppala J (2013) Biodegradable and bioactive porous scaffold structures prepared using fused deposition modeling. J Biomed Mater Res B 101b(4):610–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gray RW, Baird DG, Bohn JH (1998) Thermoplastic composites reinforced with long fiber thermotropic liquid crystalline polymers for fused deposition modeling. Polym Composite 19(4):383–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carneiro OS, Silva AF, Gomes R (2015) Fused deposition modeling with polypropylene. Mater Design 83:768–776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Love LJ, Kunc V, Rios O, Duty CE, Elliott AM, Post BK, Smith RJ, Blue CA (2014) The importance of carbon fiber to polymer additive manufacturing. J Mater Res 29(17):1893–1898. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeNardo NM (2016) Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites. Dissertation, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boparai KS, Singh R, Fabbrocino F, Fraternali F (2016) Thermal characterization of recycled polymer for additive manufacturing applications. Compos Part B Eng 106:42–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watanabe N, Shofner M, Treat N, Rosen D (2016) A model for residual stress and part warpage prediction in material extrusion with application to polypropylene. In: 2016 Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, AustinGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jog JP, Nadkarni VM (1985) Crystallization kinetics of polyphenylene sulfide. J Appl Polym Sci 30(3):997–1009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lovinger AJ, Padden FJ, Davis DD (1988) Structure of poly(p-phenylene sulfide). Polymer 29(2):229–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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):4–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bellini A, Guceri S, Bertoldi M (2004) Liquefier dynamics in fused deposition. J Manuf Sci E T ASME 126(2):237–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dynisco (2016) Capillary rheometer (LCR7000 series). http://wwwdyniscocom/capillary-rheometer--lcr-7000-series. Accessed 8 May 2017
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Critical surface tension and contact angle with water for various polymers. Accessed 14 Oct 2017
  31. 31.
    HYREL system 30. Accessed 8 May 2017
  32. 32.
    Repetier homepage. Accessed 8 May 2017
  33. 33.
    Hodgson G Slic3r manual. http// Accessed 8 May 2017
  34. 34.
    Tsou A, Waddell W (2002) Fillers. Encyclopedia of polymer science and technology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee GW, Park M, Kim J, Lee JI, Yoon HG (2006) Enhanced thermal conductivity of polymer composites filled with hybrid filler. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 37(5):727–734. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moniruzzaman M, Winey KI (2006) Polymer nanocomposites containing carbon nanotubes. Macromolecules 39(16):5194–5205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Han ZD, Fina A (2011) Thermal conductivity of carbon nanotubes and their polymer nanocomposites: a review. Prog Polym Sci 36(7):914–944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guth E (1945) Theory of filler reinforcement. J Appl Phys 16(1):20–25. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xu YS, Chung DDL, Mroz C (2001) Thermally conducting aluminum nitride polymer-matrix composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 32(12):1749–1757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily R. Fitzharris
    • 1
  • Narumi Watanabe
    • 2
  • David W. Rosen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Meisha L. Shofner
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Materials Science and EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Digital Manufacturing and Design CentreSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeRepublic of Singapore
  4. 4.Renewable Bioproducts InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations