Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1314-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
An assessment of the effect of printing orientation, density,
and filler pattern on the compressive performance of 3D
printed ABS structures by fuse deposition
G. Domínguez-Rodríguez 1 & J. J. Ku-Herrera 2 & A. Hernández-Pérez 3
Received: 30 June 2017 / Accepted: 1 November 2017 / Published online: 13 November 2017
# Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017
Abstract Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) specimens
manufactured by fused deposition are tested under uniaxial
compression in order to judge the effectiveness of printing
orientation, density, and filler patterns in terms of stiffness
and strength per printing time. The compressive properties
of the 3D printed materials along the three orthogonal direc-
tions are studied on cylindrical specimens filled with honey-
comb and rectangular patterns. In order to achieve different
densities, five filler percentages (0, 20, 30, 40, and 100%) are
employed for each type of structure. Specimens filled with
honeycomb patterns are stiffer and stronger than those with
rectangular patterns only when they are oriented along the
applied load. However, structures with rectangular patterns
only require roughly half of printing time of those filled hon-
eycomb cells, which yields effective rectangular structures
with high elastic properties per printing time. Stress–strain
curves reveal that compressive strength and stiffness increase
with respect to the structure density. Patterns printed along the
loading direction present higher strength and stiffness than on
the other orthogonal orientations. Local buckling and com-
pressive failure mechanisms are identified for light weight
* A. Hernández-Pérez
hepadrian@gmail.com
1
Centro de Investigación en Corrosión, Universidad Autónoma de
Campeche, Avenida Héroe de Nacozari No. 480, 24079 San
Francisco de Campeche, Campeche, Mexico
2
Departamento de Síntesis de Polímeros, CONACYT-Centro de
Investigación en Química Aplicada, Blvd. Enrique Reyna
Hermosillo No. 140, San José de los Cerritos,
25294 Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico
3
Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, Universidad de Guanajuato
Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Carretera Salamanca-Valle de Santiago
km 3.5 +1.8, 36885 Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico
and heavy structures, respectively. A combination of shear
and local buckling failure appeared in honeycomb structures
printed transversely with relative densities around 20–40%.
Keywords 3D printing . Filling patterns . Compression .
Ultimate compressive strength . Failure mechanism . Rapid
prototyping
1 Introduction
The recent advances in rapid prototyping or additive
manufacturing technology have provided valuable tools to
accelerate the design and manufacturing process. Designing
complex geometrical parts using conventional prototyping
methods such as mold casting, drilling, and milling can be
very expensive or may take weeks to months depending
on the complexity of the design [1–4], while using rapid
prototyping, the part is quickly built in one single step via
a layered manufacturing process [5]. Rapid prototyping
allows not only to evaluate the form, fit, function, and
ergonomics of prototypes [2] but also to produce custom
products at relatively low prices compared to traditional
mass production schemes [6]. Rapid prototyping has
quickly gained popularity among engineers and designers,
given its versatility, and it has been explored for a wide
range of applications, such as biomedical for dental and
prosthetics [7], medicine [8], electrochemical [9], elec-
tronics [10], strain sensing [11, 12], biochemistry [13],
and automotive [6] and, in general, for mechanical re-
placement of parts [3]. Some rapid prototyping technolo-
gies available to date are laminated object manufacturing,
stereolithography, solid ground curing, selective laser
sintering, direct shell production casting, and fused deposition
modeling (FDM) [2]. Each of these additive manufacturing
1686
technologies has its own advantages and limitations including
material types, built volume, manufacturing speed, part qual-
ity, and dimensional accuracy [3]. Among all rapid
prototyping techniques, FDM is, by far, the most popular
and affordable version of 3D printing and it represents the vast
majority of consumers nowadays. However, one of the main
drawbacks of FDM is its high anisotropy and weak interlayer
bonding which induce failure of the printed parts due to buck-
ling, delamination, bending, and shear [4]. Therefore, in order
to capitalize the best of the FDM 3D printing technology, it is
necessary to study the printing parameters that can affect the
mechanical properties under different loading scenarios. Some
printing parameters that have been investigated involve raster
orientation (orientation of filling pattern) [4, 14–16], raster
width (width of raster pattern) [14, 17], raster gap (space be-
tween adjacent rasters) [14, 16, 17], printing orientation (part
build orientation) [18, 19], contour layers [20, 21], layer thick-
ness [14, 17], and printing temperature [22]. For unidirection-
al printed parts, it has been shown that elastic properties are
practically identical regardless of the layer orientation [23];
however, their tensile [4, 23] and compressive [18] strengths
are highly depended on the layer orientation. For instance, Es-
Said et al. [4] observed that the tensile strength of specimens
with layers oriented parallel to the loading direction (0° spec-
imens) was twice of that of the specimens with layers oriented
perpendicular (90° specimens) to the loading direction and
was three times higher than that of the specimens with 45°
layers. Zhang et al. [24] examined the tensile, creep, and fa-
tigue responses of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) with
0°, 45°, and 90° printing orientations. They observed that 0°
oriented structures have the highest Young’s modulus and
ultimate strength whereas the 90° oriented structures present
the highest creep resistance. Under compression, Lee et al.
[18] found that the compressive strength of 0° ABS specimens
is ~ 12% higher than that of the 90° specimens. Domingo-
Espin et al. [19] determined the nine independent elastic prop-
erties that define the stiffness matrix of an orthotropic material
on polycarbonate samples. Regarding the elastic deformation,
they observed that printed specimens can be considered iso-
tropic; however, beyond yielding, the building orientation
plays an important role on their plastic properties [19]. On
the other hand, Croccolo et al. [20] investigated the effect of
the number of contour layers on the tensile properties of ABS
specimens, finding that increasing the number of contour
layers from 1 to 10, an improvements of ~ 17% in the elastic
modulus and ~ 24% in the ultimate strength are achieved. In a
step forward, Casavola et al. [15] evaluated the effect of stack-
ing sequence and raster orientation on the mechanical proper-
ties of ABS and poly(lactic acid) 3D printed parts using clas-
sical laminated plate theory. Using this theory, they were able
to predict the effective elastic moduli of 3D printed parts with
an error of 5–7% compared to the experimental results. Even
though there are some scientific works addressing the effect of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695
certain printing parameters [4, 14–20, 25, 26], other parame-
ters such as filling geometrical pattern, pattern orientation, and
filling content have not been systematically investigated. In
order to get insight on this topic, reduce the printing time and
materials, improve their mechanical properties, and provide
guidelines to designers, vendors, and users, this work investi-
gates the role of the geometrical filling pattern, filling orien-
tation, and filling content on the mechanical properties of
ABS parts subjected to uniaxial compression up to failure.
In addition, the cost-to-benefit ratio of the 3D printed struc-
tures is judged simultaneously, taking into account the stiff-
ness, strength, and density.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Material and specimen configuration
All specimens were manufactured by using a FlashForge
Dreamer 3D printer with an extruder diameter of 0.4 mm
and an ABS filament with a 1.75 mm diameter. All specimens
were manufactured with such filament extruded at a tempera-
ture of 240 °C, a layer thickness (raster gap) of 0.2 mm, two
contour layers, and a printing speed of 80 mm/s. The temper-
ature at the printer bed was set to 100 °C. Specimens with five
different filling contents were analyzed, two of them for com-
parative purposes (0 and 100%) and the others are the subjects
of study (20, 30, and 40%). These filling percentages were
chosen herein since they are the typically employed ones for
manufacturers to keep a cost-efficient but stable and stiff
structure [27]. For illustrative purposes, Fig. 1 shows sche-
matics of the filling patterns and material coordinate system.
As seen in Fig. 1, two rectangular configurations and one
honeycomb configuration were chosen, since they are the
most commonly used patterns for 3D printing [27]. These
filler shapes are also made from the same ABS filament used
to build the outer surface of the printed parts. The first rect-
angular filling pattern (labeled as Ra) corresponds to a
0/90 cross-ply configuration (Fig. 1a) while the second
one (labeled as Rb, Fig. 1b) corresponds to the + 45/−
45 configuration; the honeycomb pattern is labeled as
Hc, and it is shown in Fig. 1c.
Three loading directions are considered, one for each material
coordinate axis (1-, 2-, and 3-directions). Figure 2 illustrates the
specimens loaded in compression, indicating their internal filling
patterns. The 0/90 cross-ply (Ra) filling pattern (Fig. 1a) pro-
duces a rectangular in-plane geometry, and the material can be
considered transversely isotropic (1–2-isotropic plane); i.e., their
elastic properties on the 1- and 2-directions are equal but different
to the transverse direction (3-direction). The + 45/− 45 specimens
(Rb, Fig. 1b) also form a rectangular filling pattern with the exact
properties to the 0/90 specimens in the 3-direction, but with
different effective in-plane (1–2-directions) elastic properties.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695 1687

Fig. 1 Schematics of the filling

patterns and material coordinates.
a 0/90 (Ra). b + 45/− 45 (Rb).
c Honeycomb (Hc)

Finally, the honeycomb filling pattern is orthotropic with nine
independent elastic constants required to define their elastic be-
havior. In order to characterize the compressive elastic properties
of the specimen with all pattern configurations, six loading cases
are needed, which are represented by the two vertically and four
horizontally printed cylindrical specimens shown in Fig. 2. All
six cylindrical specimens are 25 mm tall with a radius of
12.5 mm, as recommended in the ASTM D695 standard [28].
Table 1 lists all printing configurations (22 sets) for the compres-
sive testing, their nomenclature, and density (ρ). The left-hand
words in the specimen nomenclature represent the filler shape,
the numbers at the middle represent the orientation, and the
right-hand numbers indicate the filler content percentage.
In this table, filling nomenclature is disclosed in the first
column (from left to right) while the following columns
describe the printing orientation, filling content, labels,
and densities, respectively. Labels of shell structures (0%
filling content) are identified by the initial letter “N” stand-
ing for none. For each type of configuration, eight repli-
cates were printed, making a total of 176 specimens
manufactured and analyzed. In order to analyze the cell
shape after compression, these specimens were cut trans-
versely with a diamond saw disk and then polished with
sand paper of 3000 grain size.
2.2 Compressive test setup
In order to analyze the effect of density, printing orientation,
and filler pattern on the mechanical properties of 3D printed
specimens, axial compression tests were conducted following
the procedure described in the ASTM D695 standard [28].
Quasi-static uniaxial compression tests were conducted by
using an Instron universal testing machine (model 8872)
equipped with a load cell of 25 kN under a 1.3 mm/min
cross-head speed with displacement control. For all tests, a
5 N pre-load was applied to the end of specimen cross-section
to ensure full contact. Force and cross-head displacement were
recorded until the final collapse of the structure in order to
identify the failure modes, the crushing loads, and the effect
of densification of the printed structure. In order to character-
ize the compressive mechanical response of the 3D printed
specimens, Young’s modulus (E) or stiffness, compressive
strength (σu), specific compressive stiffness (E∗ = E/ρ), and
specific compressive strength (σ*u =σu/ρ) were obtained from
the σ–ε curves. E was calculated as the slope of the stress–
strain (σ–ε) curves in the linear elastic region. Finally,
crushing loads were identified as peak loads which yield some
degree of failure, such as local buckling, crack growth, and
shattering failure.

Fig. 2 Schematics of the

specimen cross-section subjected
to compressive loadings. a 3-
direction for the 0/90 or + 45/− 45
specimen (Ra-3). b 1 (or 2)-
direction for the 0/90 specimen
(Ra-12). c 1 (or 2)-direction for
the + 45/− 45 specimen (Rb-12).
d 3-direction for the honeycomb
specimen (Hc-3). e 1-direction for
the honeycomb specimen (Hc-1).
f 2-direction for the honeycomb
specimen (Hc-2)
1688 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695

Table 1 List of specimen

printing configurations for the Filling pattern Direction Filling content (%) Label Density (ρ, kg/m3)
compressive testing
None (N) 1=2 0 N-12-0% 263 ± 3
3 0 N-3-0% 282 ± 3
Rectangular 0/90 (Ra) 1=2 20 Ra-12-20% 455 ± 7
1=2 30 Ra-12-30% 540 ± 6
1=2 40 Ra-12-40% 628 ± 12
1=2 100 Ra-12-100% 993 ± 15
3 20 Ra-3-20% 480 ± 5
3 30 Ra-3-30% 567 ± 5
3 40 Ra-3-40% 644 ± 10
3 100 Ra-3-100% 997 ± 4
Rectangular + 45/− 45 (Rb) 1=2 20 Rb-12-20% 495 ± 10
1=2 30 Rb-12-30% 579 ± 16
1=2 40 Rb-12-40% 662 ± 20
Honeycomb (Hc) 1 20 Hc-1-20% 516 ± 11
1 30 Hc-1-30% 626 ± 8
1 40 Hc-1-40% 724 ± 15
2 20 Hc-2-20% 536 ± 20
2 30 Hc-2-30% 662 ± 30
2 40 Hc-2-40% 728 ± 18
3 20 Hc-3-20% 531 ± 21
3 30 Hc-3-30% 665 ± 11
3 40 Hc-3-40% 743 ± 6

Ra-12-100% = Rb-12-100%; Ra-3-100% = Rb-3-100%

3 Results and discussion
3.1 Stress–strain curves
Compressive strength and stiffness of all ABS printed speci-
mens with different densities, filler contents, and orientations
were measured from their compressive σ–ε curves. For all the
σ–ε curves, σu is considered as the first peak stress and it is
indicated with a red circle. Figure 3 shows the representative
σ–ε curves of specimens filled with a honeycomb pattern with
different contents (20, 30, and 40%), loaded along the 3-
direction (Fig. 3a), 1-direction (Fig. 3b), and 2-direction
(Fig. 3c). For comparison, the σ–ε curves of solid samples
(100% of the filler content) and shell samples (0% of the filler
content) are also plotted.
Figure 3a shows that Hc-3-20% has a bilinear σ–ε behav-
ior. The first linear trend shows a 623 MPa slope from
0 ≤ ε ≤ 4.4% until the first peak stress of 18.8 MPa is reached.
Beyond this point, the structure is able to bear more compres-
sive load; then, a second linear σ–ε response is observed until
it reaches a second peak stress of 21 MPa at ε = 20.5%. Hc-3-
30% and Hc-3-40% specimens exhibit similar σ–ε trends to
that of Hc-3-20% with the exception that σu increases as the
filler content increases. Hence, as the in-plane size of honey-
comb cells decreases (higher density), the elastic properties of
3D printed structures increase. This behavior has also been
observed by Jin et al. [29] in the compressive response of
aluminum hexagonal honeycombs. Ra-3-100% exhibits a
large bilinear σ–ε response whereas N-3-0% presents a short
linear elastic σ–ε behavior until the structure suddenly col-
lapses after the peak stress. The picture of Ra-3-100% at
the right-hand side of the σ–ε curves in Fig. 3a confirms
that it failed by compression. For all Hc-3 specimens,
white marks on their surfaces are observed (see pictures),
suggesting that failure is due to a combination of local
plastic deformation and buckling. The cross-sectional pic-
tures of Hc-3 samples show a plastic collapse at the cell
wall corners which creates plastic hinges due to the plastic
moment reached at these corners [30]. A cross-sectional
picture of Hc-3-40% shows a radial crack which nucleated
through three cell walls because the thin wall did not bear
the bending moments at corners. Plastic deformation seems
to be the dominant failure mechanism for specimens with
high filling content (Ra-3-100% and Hc-3-40%) while lo-
calized buckling is for specimens with low filling content
(N-3-0% and Hc-3-20%). Local buckling arises on N-3-0%
because it is a thin shell structure with a high aspect ratio
(thickness/length ratio), and hence, it is prone to bending.
Pictures of N-3-0% indicate that its outer surface is bulged
near the top end as a consequence of local buckling.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695
Fig. 3 Stress–strain curves and
photographs of the representative
Hc samples. a Hc-3, b Hc-1,
and c Hc-2 structures with
different filling percentages.
Scale bars in millimeters
In general, Hc-1 specimens exhibit a small linear elastic
region until they reach their peak stresses; then, their load
bearing capability slowly decreases with a slightly jagged
σ–ε trend up to the final collapse (see Fig. 3b). Hc-1-20%
shows a small linear elastic σ–ε trend up to ε = 4.4% when
the first peak stress is reached at 12.6 MPa. Further compres-
sive load yields a slightly jagged σ–ε response until the struc-
ture collapses. For Hc-1-20%, failure is attributed to the local-
ized buckling of honeycomb walls (inside the structure) ori-
ented parallel to the compressive loading (see its cross-
sectional picture). Shear and compressive loads also trigger
the propagation of cracks along the longitudinal printed direc-
tion. Hc-1-30% and Hc-1-40% exhibit similar σ–ε curves than
1689
that of Hc-1-20%; however, σu and E are enhanced for denser
structures. Pictures of Hc-1-30% and Hc-1-40% reveal a shear
failure mechanism at large deformations, occurring at − 45°
(see pictures on Fig. 3b), which suggests that its failure mode
is a combination of shear and local buckling. Their cross-sec-
tions show sliding between neighbor cell walls, which also
indicates contribution of shearing. White marks on the sur-
faces of Hc-1 specimens are only appreciated locally, where
shear or buckling failure occurred. N-12-0% shows a small
linear elastic σ–ε behavior followed by a sudden collapse after
reaching the peak stress. For this specimen, local buckling is
identified as its failure mechanism (see pictures in Fig. 3b).
The local buckling was so severe that a flaw propagates
1690
catastrophically along the printing lines (3-direction), typical
of a brittle fracture. Ra-12-100% displays a stiff bilinear σ–ε
response with much higher strength and stiffness than those of
N-12-0% and Hc-1 specimens. As observed in the pictures,
compressive plastic deformation is the failure mechanism of
Ra-12-100%.
Hc-2 specimens (Fig. 3c) show a linear elastic behavior for
low strains (ε ≤ 3.0%) similar to that of Hc-1, although Hc-2
structures retain higher load bearing capacity once the peak
stress is reached than Hc-1 ones, as seen in Fig. 3b. Hc-2-20%
and Hc-2-30% exhibit a wavy decreasing σ–ε behavior once
σu is reached until failure. In contrast, the load bearing capac-
ity of Hc-2-40% decreases slightly once σu is reached and then
continues increasing up to the final collapse. At the outer
surface, wrinkles and longitudinal cracks are observed in the
photographs of Fig. 3c for all Hc-2 structures due to local
buckling failure. Cross-sectional photographs indicate that
cell walls reached the yield point of the ABS (see the white
marks within the cells) and local buckling occurred longitudi-
nally (it is not appreciated at the in-plane but observed in the
outer surface). For Hc-2 samples, the local buckling was not
severe, allowing the structure to keep pace of the applied load
due to densification and compression beyond σu.
The representative σ–ε curves of Ra specimens are shown
in Fig. 4. Even though baseline samples (viz., N-12-0%, N-3-
0%, Ra-12-100%, and Ra-3-100%) are discussed in Fig. 3,
they are plotted again in Fig. 4 for comparative purposes.
According to Fig. 4a, Ra-3 structures display a proportional
linear elastic σ–ε response for small deformations (ε ≤ 4.41%)
until the first peak stress is reached. A second linear trend in
the σ–ε response beyond a yielding region is identified, which
increases monotonically until it exhibits a second peak stress,
then σ decreases up to the final collapse of the specimen. For
these specimens, σu (first peak stress) improves as the struc-
ture density increases. Photographs of failed Ra specimens
(right-hand side in Fig. 4a) point it out that a combination of
compressive plastic deformation and local buckling are the
dominant failure mechanisms. Cross-sectional photographs
indicate that local buckling promotes the bending of cell walls
at its corners and, as the cell size becomes smaller, this behav-
ior decreases and yielding becomes the dominant failure
mechanism.
In Fig. 4b, it can be seen that the σ–ε curves of Ra-12
specimens show a small linear elastic behavior followed by
a steep-down σ–ε response after σu. It is also observed that the
stiffness and strength enhance with respect to density. The
sudden σ–ε drop is due to the collapse of the inner structure
(filler shape) due to local buckling, as evidenced in pictures of
Fig. 4b. At the cross-sections, it can be observed that cells
bend along the longitudinal direction and neighbor cells push
each other as the bending increases, giving rise to the radial
patterns shown. The local buckling is also responsible for
the σ–ε fluctuating behavior on large deformation regimes
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695
and the propagation of cracks along the longitudinal axis.
Rb-12 specimens show σ–ε curves (Fig. 4c) similar to
those from Ra-12 samples (Fig. 4b) with the exception that
Ra-12 has a sharper decrease in the load bearing capacity
once σu is reached. Regarding the filling content, Rb-12-
40% shows the effect of densification on the smooth linear
decaying trend of the σ–ε response beyond the maximum
stress, which contrasts with the sharper stress drop for Rb-
12-20% and Rb-12-30% at the same strain levels. Local
buckling is also identified as the failure mechanism for
Rb-12 structures according to the photographs of Fig. 4c,
which induced wrinkles and debonding between cells and
the outer printed surface.
In order to directly compare the overall σ–ε behavior
of all types of structures, Fig. 5 shows specific stress σ*
(kPa*m3/kg) versus ε of all printed specimens with a relative
density of 20%. Stress values in kPa for each sample type can
be obtained by multiplying σ* with the corresponding density
listed in Table 1. These parameters (σ* and 20% of relative
density) were chosen in order to disregard the effect of small
differences on weight between the printed structures (see
Table 1). As seen in Fig. 5, Hc-3-20% exhibits the highest
σ*u and E* because its hexagonal extruded pattern is aligned
with respect to the applied load (3-direction). The other struc-
tures display similar peak σ* values among them (they vary
only between 20 and 25 kPa*m3/kg) although their E* has
numerical differences (see Fig. 6 for details). It is also ob-
served that Hc-1-20%, Hc-2-20%, Ra-12-20%, and Rb-12-
20% are not capable of carrying compressive loads beyond
their σ*u because of their jagged-like σ*–ε behavior. Therefore,
Hc-3 and Ra-3 are recommended for compression under large
deformation regimes due to their linear strain hardening σ*–ε
response.
3.2 Specific stiffness and strength
In order to quantify the structural effectiveness of the ABS
specimens (i.e., structural performance considering their
weigh), specific stiffness and strength are discussed in this
section. To obtain stiffness and strength values in MPa or
kPa of a particular structure, E* or σ*u should be multiplied
by the corresponding density listed in Table 1. Figure 6 com-
pares the σ*u values for Hc, Ra, and Rb filling patterns at
different contents (0, 20, 30, 40, and 100%). The histogram
shown in Fig. 6 is plotted with three x-axis levels, being the
first one (bottom to top) to group filling patterns while the
second and third ones for printing orientation and filling con-
tent, respectively. Regardless of the filler shape, all specimens
loaded along the 3-orientation show the highest strength with
respect to those loaded along their 1- or 2-orientation; this
response is a consequence of the walls of the printed filler
shapes being aligned with respect to the compressive load.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695
Fig. 4 Representative stress–
strain curves and photographs of
fractured Ra (a Ra-3, b Ra-12)
and Rb (c Rb-12) specimens.
Scale bars in millimeters
As expected, solid structures display the highest strength
while shell geometries (0% filling content) present the lowest
strength. Small differences in σ*u are found among specimens
loaded in their 1- or 2-direction, independent of the cell pattern
employed. The highest σ*u was exhibited by Hc-3 specimens.
Thus, these structures are recommended for low-weight appli-
cations while solid structures (Ra-3-100% and Ra-12-100%)
are recommended for compressive applications where weight
is not crucial.
Figure 7 compares E* for all ABS specimens tested. Shell
and solid structures display dissimilar E* values with respect to
their orientation. By grouping the specimens based on their
1691
filling pattern, it can be seen that filling content does not affect
E*. For shell specimens (N-12-0% and N-3-0%), 3-direction
shows higher stiffness than 1- or 2-direction, whereas for solid
specimens, it is the opposite way; i.e., 1- and/or 2-orientation
yields higher E*. This happens to shell specimens because the
applied load is carried by the thin wall and the stiffness only
depends on the structural stability among raster lines of the wall.
On the other hand, for solid specimens, their dense filling patterns
(it yields smaller voids) promote a very stable structure, which
are unlikely to bend or buckle. For Ra specimens, higher E* is
achieved when specimens are printed along the 1 (1 = 2)-direc-
tion, while for Hc configurations, higher E* values are achieved
1692 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695

45
the required printing time increases with respect to filler con-
Hc-3-20%
40 tent, from 6.1–7.6 min for hollow structures (0% filler) to
35 Ra-3-20%
17.1–17.6 min for solid ones (100% filler), although Hc-3
reached 19.3 min at 40%. In general, honeycomb patterns
30
(kPa*m3/kg)

require more printing time than rectangular patterns. By com-

Hc-2-20% paring Ra-3 and Hc-3, it is observed that Hc-3 specimens
25
*

20
15
10
Hc-1-20%
Ra-12-20%
5 Rb-12-20%
0 tation sequence: Ra-3, Rb-12, Ra-12, Hc-2, Hc-1, and Hc-3;
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(%)
Fig. 5 Representative specific stress–strain curves for Hc-1, Hc-2, Hc-3,
Ra-12, Ra-3, and Rb-12 specimens with 20% filling content
in the 3-direction. If solid specimens are excluded, Hc-3 struc-
tures present the highest E* values. As suggested in Fig. 7, ap-
plications that demand stiff structures should employ the Hc-3
configuration as a first option followed by Ra-12 as a second
choice. No significant differences on the E* values of Ra-3-, Rb-
12, Hc-1, and Hc-2 specimens were observed.
3.3 Mechanical properties as functions of the printing time
Since printing time represents one of the dominant factors on
the production cost of 3D printed structures, comparative
analyses of the cost associated to printing time and cost-to-
benefit ratio regarding the strength and stiffness as a function
of the printing time were conducted. Figure 8 shows the
time required to print a single specimen for all printing con-
figurations; here, the structures are sorted from short to long
printing time for each filler percentage. It is observed that
require 32, 58, and 82% more printing time than Ra-3 ones
for 20, 30, and 40% of the filler content, respectively. These
differences may be due to the honeycomb structure taking
extra steps in the printing process as a consequence of its
hexagonal array. For most cases, regardless of filler percent-
age, printing time increases according to the following orien-
40
i.e., Ra-3 specimens take the lowest printing time whereas Hc-
3 specimens the highest (Fig. 8). Printing orientation has a
small influence on the printing time of rectangular patterns,
whereas for honeycomb patterns, printing time is practically
the same regardless the orientation. For rectangular patterns,
the 3-orientation yields the shortest printing time whereas the
1–2-orientations yield the longest. Results of Fig. 8 evidence
that for rectangular patterns (Ra-12, Ra-3, and Rb-12), print-
ing time slightly increases with respect to the filler percentage.
For instance, the required printing time for Ra-3 slightly in-
creases from 9.0 min at 20% to 10.6 min at 40%. On the other
hand, honeycomb samples show an important variation of
printing time with respect to filler percentage. For example,
time for Hc-1 increases from 11.9 to 18.6 min for an increase
of filler content from 20 to 40%. Therefore, dense structures
can be achieved by using rectangular patterns in a short period
of time.
Figure 9 compares the E values of structures with 20, 30,
and 40% of the filler content as a function of their printing
time. Data for structures with 0 and 100% of filler content
are not plotted in Figs. 9 and 10 in order to make systematic
comparisons between honeycomb and rectangular patterns.

Fig. 6 Comparison of specific 60

compressive strength (σ*u ) for
48
ABS printed specimens 50
46 45 44
41 41
40 38
(kPa·m3/kg)

34 32
32
30 28 28
25 26 24
22 24 24 24 24
22 23
u
*

20

10

0
Filler % 0 20 30 40 100 20 30 40 100 20 30 40 20 30 40 20 30 40 20 30 40
Orientation 1=2 3 1=2 3 1=2 1 2 3
Pattern N Ra Rb Hc
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695 1693

Fig. 7 Comparison of specific 1.6

stiffness for all ABS printed

9
1.2
1.4

6
structures

2
1.2

1.2
8
6
1.1
1.1
4
1.1
1.2

4
76

2
1.0
77
1.0
0.9
E* (MPa· m3/kg)

0.9

75
1.0

54

42
0.8
27
15

3
0.8

0.8

56
77

53
0.8

52

0.8
0.8

34

4
0.7
0.7

0.7
0.7

0.7
0.7
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
Filler % 0 20 30 40 100 20 30 40 100 20 30 40 20 30 40 20 30 40 20 30 40
Orientation 1=2 3 1=2 3 1=2 1 2 3
Pattern N Ra Rb Hc

As discussed in Section 3.1, stiffness of the specimens in-
creases as a function of filling content; however, this also
implies that stiffer structures require longer printing time as
suggested in Fig. 9. In general, honeycomb structures are
stiffer than the rectangular ones but their required printing
time is much longer. Thus, honeycomb structures are more
mass-efficient but their production is less time-efficient.
Both rectangular and honeycomb patterns show that the 3-
orientation yields stiffer structures than the 1–2-orientations
for similar printing times. For example, Hc-3-20% has
626 MPa whereas Hc-1-20% and Hc-2-20% have 426 and
405 MPa, respectively, for the same 11.9 min period. Ra-3
structures show a nonlinear increase in E with respect to
printing time, raising from 445 to 652 MPa while printing
time only increases from 9 to 10.6 min; i.e., they become
stiffer in short periods of printing. For Ra-12 and Rb-12, on
the other hand, E varies linearly with respect to printing
time. However, Ra-12 specimens are stiffer than Rb-12 ones
but shorter printing times are required. Honeycomb struc-
tures present a linear behavior of E with respect to their
printing time. Hc-3 raises from 626 to 908 MPa for an
increase of printing time from 11.9 to 19.3 min; i.e., impor-
tant enhancements in stiffness are obtained but large print-
ing times are needed. On the other hand, Young’s modulus
of Hc-1 and Hc-2 samples are very similar at 11.9 and
15.3 min; a difference of 86 MPa is found between Hc-1
and Hc-2 at 18.6 min.
The compressive strength of specimens with 20, 30,
and 40% of the filler content was also plotted against
printing time per sample, as it is shown in Fig. 10. In
this figure, it is evident that σu has a similar trend to that
of E with respect to printing time (Fig. 9). Structures with

Fig. 8 Printing time per sample

of all tested structures
1694 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695

Ra-3 40 %
900
Ra-12
printing time, and filler shape on their stiffness, strength, and
Rb-12 failure mechanisms. Analysis of the stress–strain (σ–ε) curves
800 Hc-3 30 %
Hc-1 suggests that stiffness and ultimate strength are rendered
Hc-2
700
40 %
higher accordingly by increasing the filling content.
20 %
E (MPa)

Specimens with patterns printed along the longitudinal direc-

600 30 %
40 % tion show a bilinear σ–ε response whereas those transversely
40 %
500
20 % 30 % printed show a short linear elastic response for small deforma-
30 %
tions and a nonlinear (jagged-like) behavior beyond the peak
400
20 %
20 % stress. Specimens printed along the longitudinal direction (3-
300 orientation) are stiffer and stronger than those transversely
7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0
Printing time per specimen (min)
printed (1–2-orientations). Specimens filled with honeycomb
patterns exhibit better elastic properties compared to those
Fig. 9 Compressive Young’s modulus as a function of the printing time
per sample of representative samples with a filler percentage of 20, 30, filled with rectangular patterns when they are printed in the
and 40% longitudinal direction, while no significant differences in their
elastic properties are observed in the transversal direction.
Local buckling failure occurred in lightweight (low filling
content) structures, promoting crack propagation along the
3-orientation bear higher compressive loads than those longitudinal direction. Compressive failure was identified for
with 1- and 2-orientations for similar printing times. relatively dense structures (30, 40, and 100%) and those with
Honeycomb structures carry more compressive loads than longitudinal extruded patterns. A combination of shear and
rectangular ones although their printing time is longer. local buckling failure appeared in honeycomb structures trans-
Structures with patterns along the 3-direction show a non- versely printed with relative densities around 20–40%.
linear increase of σu with respect to printing time, but Structures with rectangular patterns employ much shorter
patterns along the 1- and 2-directions present a linear printing time than structures with honeycomb cells for the
response. According to results in Figs. 8, 9, and 10, it same filling content. Therefore, the compressive stiffness
is suggested to employ Ra-3 structures in large-scale pro- and strength normalized with the printing time of structures
duction systems because they can reach high E and σu with rectangular cells were higher than those from honeycomb
values at relatively low printing time. On the other hand, patterns, indicating that rectangular filler shape is more suit-
Hc-3 structures are recommended for the production of able for fast mass production systems. Results suggest that 3D
stronger and stiffer parts despite of the longer printing printed structures filled with honeycomb patterns in the lon-
time required. gitudinal direction have the most effective strength/mass ratio,
and thus, they are recommended for low-weight applications.
Solid structures (rectangular or honeycomb with 100% of rel-
4 Conclusions ative density) exhibit the highest strength being recommended
for applications where weight is not limited.
3D printed ABS structures were tested under compressive
loads in order to analyze the role of printing direction, density, Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge Diego Gomez Marquez
and Miguel Nuñez Cardenas (Universidad de Guanajuato) for the com-
pression tests.
35
40 %

30 % Funding information The partial support from the “Laboratorio

30
Nacional en Innovación y Desarrollo de Materiales Ligeros para la
40 %
Industria Automotriz (LANI-Auto)” through CONACYT grant no.
25 280425 is greatly appreciated. A. Hernández-Pérez acknowledges the
(MPa)

30 % 20 %
PRODEP program (UGTO-PTC-539) for the economic support.
20
40 % 40 %
u

20 % References
15 30 % Ra-3
30 %
Ra-12
20 % Rb-12
10 Hc-3 1. Lin AC, Liang S-R (2002) Rapid prototyping through scanned
20 %
Hc-1 point data. Int J Prod Res 40(2):293–310
Hc-2
5 2. Kamrani AK, Nasr EA (2009) Rapid prototyping, engineering de-
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 sign and rapid prototyping. Springer, Boston, pp 339–354
Printing time per specimen (min)
3. Conner BP, Manogharan GP, Martof AN, Rodomsky LM,
Fig. 10 Compressive strength as a function of the printing time per Rodomsky CM, Jordan DC, Limperos JW (2014) Making sense
sample of representative samples with a filler percentage of 20, 30, and of 3-D printing: creating a map of additive manufacturing products
40% and services. Additive Manufacturing:1, 64–4, 76
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2018) 95:1685–1695
4. Es-Said OS, Foyos J, Noorani R, Mendelson M, Marloth R,
Pregger BA (2000) Effect of layer orientation on mechanical prop-
erties of rapid prototyped samples. Mater Manuf Process 15(1):
107–122
5. Um D (2016) Rapid prototyping, solid modeling and applications.
Springer, Cham, pp 191–221
6. Savastano M, Amendola C, D’Ascenzo F, Massaroni E (2016) 3-D
printing in the spare parts supply chain: an explorative study in the
automotive industry. In: Caporarello L, Cesaroni F, Giesecke R,
Missikoff M (eds) Digitally supported innovation. Springer,
Cham, pp 153–170
7. Bose S, Vahabzadeh S, Bandyopadhyay A (2013) Bone tissue en-
gineering using 3D printing. Mater Today 16(12):496–504
8. Chya-Yan L, Murat G (2017) Current and emerging applications of
3D printing in medicine. Biofabrication 9(2): 024102
9. Ambrosi A, Pumera M (2016) 3D-printing technologies for elec-
trochemical applications. Chem Soc Rev 45(10):2740–2755
10. Espalin D, Muse DW, MacDonald E, Wicker RB (2014) 3D print-
ing multifunctionality: structures with electronics. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 72(5–8):963–978
11. Kumbay Yildiz S, Mutlu R, Alici G (2016) Fabrication and charac-
terisation of highly stretchable elastomeric strain sensors for pros-
thetic hand applications. Sensors Actuators A Phys 247:514–521
12. Muth JT, Vogt DM, Truby RL, Mengüç Y, Kolesky DB, Wood RJ,
Lewis JA (2014) Embedded 3D printing of strain sensors within
highly stretchable elastomers. Adv Mater 26(36):6307–6312
13. Gross BC, Erkal JL, Lockwood SY, Chen C, Spence DM (2014)
Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology
and the chemical sciences. Anal Chem 86(7):3240–3253
14. Lee BH, Abdullah J, Khan ZA (2005) Optimization of rapid
prototyping parameters for production of flexible ABS object. J
Mater Process Technol 169(1):54–61
15. Casavola C, Cazzato A, Moramarco V, Pappalettere C (2016)
Orthotropic mechanical properties of fused deposition modelling
parts described by classical laminate theory. Mater Des 90:453–458
16. Dawoud M, Taha I, Ebeid SJ (2016) Mechanical behaviour of ABS:
an experimental study using FDM and injection moulding tech-
niques. J Manuf Process 21:39–45
17. Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2010) Parametric appraisal of
mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts.
Mater Des 31(1):287–295
1695
18. Lee CS, Kim SG, Kim HJ, Ahn SH (2007) Measurement of aniso-
tropic compressive strength of rapid prototyping parts. J Mater
Process Technol:187, 627–188, 630
19. Domingo-Espin M, Puigoriol-Forcada JM, Garcia-Granada A-A,
Llumà J, Borros S, Reyes G (2015) Mechanical property character-
ization and simulation of fused deposition modeling polycarbonate
parts. Mater Des 83:670–677
20. Croccolo D, De Agostinis M, Olmi G (2013) Experimental charac-
terization and analytical modelling of the mechanical behaviour of
fused deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30. Comput
Mater Sci 79:506–518
21. Song Y, Li Y, Song W, Yee K, Lee KY, Tagarielli VL (2017)
Measurements of the mechanical response of unidirectional 3D-
printed PLA. Mater Des 123:154–164
22. Yang C, Tian X, Li D, Cao Y, Zhao F, Shi C (2017) Influence of
thermal processing conditions in 3D printing on the crystallinity
and mechanical properties of PEEK material. J Mater Process
Technol 248:1–7
23. D.P. Cole, J.C. Riddick, H.M. Iftekhar Jaim, K.E. Strawhecker,
N.E. Zander, Interfacial mechanical behavior of 3D printed ABS,
Journal of Applied Polymer Science 133(30) (2016) n/a-n/a
24. Zhang H, Cai L, Golub M, Zhang Y, Yang X, Schlarman K, Zhang J
(2017) Tensile, creep, and fatigue behaviors of 3D-printed acrylo-
nitrile butadiene styrene. J Mater Eng Perform
25. Pilipović A, Raos P, Šercer M (2009) Experimental analysis of
properties of materials for rapid prototyping. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 40(1):105–115
26. Mueller J, Shea K, Daraio C (2015) Mechanical properties of parts
fabricated with inkjet 3D printing through efficient experimental
design. Mater Des 86:902–912
27. Salinas R (2014) 3D printing with RepRap cookbook. Packt,
Birmingham
28. ASTM D2344, standard test method for short-beam strength of
polymer matrix composite materials and their laminates, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, 2015
29. Jin T, Zhou Z, Wang Z, Wu G, Shu X (2015) Experimental study on
the effects of specimen in-plane size on the mechanical behavior of
aluminum hexagonal honeycombs. Mater Sci Eng A 635:23–35
30. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1999) Cellular solids: structure and proper-
ties, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge