Advertisement

Progress in Additive Manufacturing

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 185–193 | Cite as

FDM filaments with unique segmentation since evolution: a critical review

  • R. AnandkumarEmail author
  • S. Ramesh Babu
Review Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

The urge towards faster and sophisticated manufacturing is a nurturing factor of human life. Researchers envisage in developing complex products in shorter time duration. The conventional subtractive manufacturing undergoes pre-processing, processing, and post-processing stages. Additive manufacturing (AM) undergoes the same set of stages, where as raw material is added gradually to get the final product in contradiction to the subtractive manufacturing. There are many variants in AM technology, amongst that fused deposition modeling (FDM) is less sophisticated and incurs lesser manufacturing cost. The filament is the deciding factor for the final quality and cost of the product in FDM. Filament invariants have evolved slowly since the 1980s and had shown imperative growth in the last decade. Hence, the significance of filament in FDM insists to undergo a critical review on filament segmentation, growth, and its future. The absence of specific article or publication presenting a review is the prime objective of the critical review.

Keywords

Additive manufacturing Fused deposition modeling (FDM) FDM filament Filament review Filament analysis optimization 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Berger U, Hartmann A, Schmid D (2013) Additive fertigungsverfahren, rapid prototyping, rapid tooling, rapid manufacturing. Europa Publisher, NoureyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levy GN, Schindel R, Kruth JP (2003) Rapid manufacturing and rapid prototyping with layer manufacturing (lm) technologies, state of the art and future perpectives. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 52(2):589–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koziora T, Kunderaa C (2017) TRANSCOM 2017: international scientific conference on sustainable, modern and safe transport, evaluation of the influence of parameters of FDM technology on the selected mechanical properties of models. Procedia Eng 192:463–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goyanes A, Kobayashia M, Martínez-Pachecob R, Gaisforda S, Basita AW (2016) Fused-filament 3D printing of drug products: microstructure analysis and drug release characteristics of PVA-based caplets. Int J Pharm 514:290–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kruth JP, Leu MC, Nakagawa T (1998) Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 47:525–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boschetto A, Bottini L, Veniali F (2016) Integration of FDM surface quality modeling with process design. Addit Manuf 12:334–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lieneke T, Denzer V, Adama GAO, Zimmer D (2016) 14th CIRP conference on computer aided tolerancing (CAT), dimensional tolerances for additive manufacturing: experimental investigation for fused deposition modeling. Procedia CIRP 43:286–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies: designation F2792–12a (2012) ASTM international, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen JSS, Feng HY (2011) Contour generation for layered manufacturing with reduced part distortion. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53:1103–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petzold R, Zeilhofer HF, Kalender WA (1999) Rapid prototyping technology in medicine—basics and applications. Comput Med Imaging Graph 23:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yan X, Gu P (1996) A review of rapid prototyping technologies and systems. Comput Aided Des 28:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shemelya C, Cedillos F, Aguilera E, Maestas E, Ramos J, Espalin D et al (2013) 3Dprinted capacitive sensors. In: Sensors IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Espalin D, Muse DW, MacDonald E, Wicker RB (2014) 3D printing multi-functionality: structures with electronics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72:963–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shemelya C, Banuelos-Chacon L, Melendez A, Kief C, Espalin D, Wicker R et al (2015) Multi-functional 3D printed and embedded sensors for satellite qualification structures. In: Sensors IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ota H, Emaminejad S, Gao Y, Zhao A, Wu E, Challa S et al (2016) Application of 3D printing for smart objects with embedded electronic sensors and systems. Adv Mater Technol 1:1600013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu SY, Yang C, Hsu W, Lin L (2015) 3D-printed microelectronics for integrated circuitry and passive wireless sensors. Microsyst Nanoeng 1:15013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peng H, Guimbretière F, McCann J, Hudson S (2016) A 3D printer for interactive electromagnetic devices. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM, pp 553–562Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nate K, Tentzeris MM (2015) A novel 3-D printed loop antenna using flexible NinjaFlex material for wearable and IoT applications. In: Electrical performance of electronic packaging and systems (EPEPS), 2015 IEEE 24th, IEEE, pp 171–174Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yuen PK (2016) Embedding objects during 3D printing to add new functionalities. Biomicrofluidics 10:044104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yung WKC et al (2016) Additive and photochemical manufacturing of copper. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39584 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le Duigou A, Castro M, Bevan R, Martin N (2016) 3D printing of wood fibre biocomposites: from mechanical to actuation functionality. Mater Des 96(2016):106–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zuluaga DC, Menges A (2015) 3D printed hygroscopic programmable material systems. In: MRS proceedings. Cambridge Univ Press, pp mrss15-2134303Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmitz M, Khalilbeigi M, Balwierz M, Lissermann R, Mühlhäuser M, Steimle J (2015) Capricate: a fabrication pipeline to design and 3D print capacitive touch sensors for interactive objects. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM, pp 253–258Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Postiglione G, Natale G, Griffini G, Levi M, Turri S (2015) Conductive 3D microstructures by direct 3D printing of polymer/carbon nanotubenanocomposites via liquid deposition modeling. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 76:110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leigh S (2016) Polymer composites for 3D printing of functional sensors and transducers. In: Sensors IEEE, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rymansaib Z, Iravani P, Emslie E, Medvidović-Kosanović M, Sak-Bosnar M, Verdejo R et al (2016) All-polystyrene 3D-printed electrochemical device with embedded carbon nano fiber-graphite-polystyrene composite conductor. Electroanalysis 28(7):1517–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bollig LM, Hilpisch PJ, Mowry GJ, Nelson-Cheeseman BB (2017) 3D printed magnetic polymer composite transformers. J Magn Magn Mater.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2017.06.070 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brooke R (2014) TCT magazine, 3D printing materials report predicts 20% yearly growth to 2018. Accessed 12 Feb 2014Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Acccreate Technology (2014) TCT magazine, Weistek exhibits 3D printers and filaments at CES. Accessed 2 Jan 2014Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Griffiths L (2014) TCT magazine, Igus introduces world’s first tribo-filament for 3D printing. Accessed 15 Oct 2014Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Griffiths L (2014) TCT magazine, Verbatim Unveils PRIMALLOY 3D printing filament. Accessed 10 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Griffiths L (2015) TCT magazine, German RepRap releases new performance PLA. Accessed 19 Jan 2015Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Griffiths L (2015) TCT magazine, taulman3D launches new high strength. In: PLA 3D printing filament with enhanced colour clarity. Accessed 5 May 2015Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pirnstill CW, Coté GL (2015) Malaria diagnosis using a mobile phone polarized microscope. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13368 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Griffiths L (2016) TCT magazine, Algix 3D launches new filament to replace ABS. Accessed 21 Mar 2016Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    SABIC (2017) TCT magazine, SABIC unveils new portfolio of high-performance filament grades for FDM 3D printing. Accessed 10 May 2017Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Davies S (2017) TCT magazine, Verbatim unveils new polypropylene 3D printing material. Accessed 4 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Davies S (2017) TCT magazine, Floreon 3D begins search for partners to bring patented PLA filament technology to market. Accessed 5 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Furomoto S (2017) TCT magazine, Verbatim introduces new PRIMALLOY BLACK high-performance 3D printing filament. Accessed 12 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Coex LLC (2017) TCT magazine, DuPont high performance 3D printing materials available in EMEA through German RepRap. Accessed 5 Oct 2017Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Davies S (2017) TCT magazine, Fillamentum releases PLA Extrafill Vertigo Galaxy FDM 3D printing filament. Accessed 6 Oct 2017Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tanaka T et al (2017) Orthotropic laminated open-cell frameworks retaining strong auxeticity under large uniaxial loading. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39816 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rešetič A et al (2016) Polymer-dispersed liquid crystal elastomers. Nat Commun.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13140 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chen S et al (2017) The role of three-dimensional printed models of skull in anatomy education: a randomized controlled trail. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00647-1 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    O’Connor D (2013) TCT magazine, 3D printing with seaweed. Accessed 3 Dec 2013Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    O’Connor D (2015) TCT magazine, MakerBot to launch four new filaments including metal, wood and limestone. Accessed 6 Jan 2015Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Griffiths L (2015) TCT magazine, 3Dom USA launches coffee-based bio-material for eco-friendly 3D printing. Accessed 24 Aug 2015Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Griffiths L (2015) TCT magazine, WillowFlex 3D printing filament to lead organic material evolution. Accessed 19 Aug 2015Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Facilan (2017) TCT magazine, 3D4Makers and Perstorp partner to launch Facilan FDM 3D printing filament portfolio. Accessed 9 November 2017Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    O’Connor D (2014) TCT magazine, 10 new materials you can now print with. Accessed 29 April 2014Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    O’Connor D (2015) TCT magazine, graphene 3D Lab to launch water-soluble 3D printing filament. Accessed 29 Apr 2015Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    O’Connor D (2015) TCT magazine, the virtuous circle of Algae-infused PLA by Algix and 3D fuel. Accessed 21 May 2015Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    O’Connor D (2015) TCT magazine, Dutch startup to bring aerospace grade 3D printing materials to the desktop. Accessed 29 Jul 2015Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dudal A (2015) TCT magazine, taking 3D printing filament to the next level. Accessed 18 Dec 2015Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Matsuzaki R et al (2016) Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber composites by in-nozzle impregnation. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23058 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stolyarov D (2016) TCT magazine, graphene 3D Lab launch magnetic filament. Accessed 19 Jan 2016Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wang W et al (2016) Deployable soft composite structures. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20869 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    DomFuel’s (2016) TCT magazine, 3D printing filament manufacturers join forces on new company 3DomFuel. Accessed 23 Mar 2016Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Davies S (2017) TCT magazine, colorFabb launches nGen_LUX 3D printing filament featuring diffuse reflection. Accessed 22 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    FiberLab (2017) TCT magazine, FIBERLAB releases flexible and temperature fluctuation resistant Fiberflex 40D 3D printing filament. Accessed 14 Jun 2017Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Isakov D et al (2017) A split ring resonator dielectric probe for near-field dielectric imaging. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02176-3 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    O’Connor D (2017) TCT magazine, WATCH: metal part from an FDM start—polymaker at 3D printing Tokyo 2017. Accessed 17 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kolodny L (2017) Desktop metal reveals how its 3D printers rapidly churn out metal objects. www.techcurnch.com. Accessed 25 Apr 2017
  64. 64.
    Caminero MA, Chacón JM, García-Moreno I, Reverte JM (2018) Interlaminar bonding performance of 3D printed continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modelling. Polym Test.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.04.038 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Caminero MA, Chacón JM, García-Moreno I, Rodríguez GP (2018) Impact damage resistance of 3D printed continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modelling. Compos Part B.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.054 Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    O’Connor D (2013) TCT magazine, filabot filament. Accessed 11 Jun 2013Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hoyt R (2015) TCT magazine, NASA and tethers unlimited developing positrusion system for recycling 3D printing filament in space. Accessed 17 Apr 2015Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Scott (2015) TCT magazine, fila-cycle launches largest collection of recycled 3D printing filaments. Accessed 5 Nov 2015Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Davies S (2016) TCT magazine, Tasmanian teacher finds way to turn unwanted plastic rope into 3D printing filament. Accessed 15 Nov 2016Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Davies S (2016) TCT magazine, recycling plastic waste for high performance 3D printing filament the aim for ALT LLC. Accessed 8 Dec 2016Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    O’Connor D (2014) TCT magazine, wave goodbye to filament spools. Accessed 19 May 2014Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Esun (2014) TCT magazine, Esun launches cleaning filament. Accessed 16 Jun 2014Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Davies S (2016) TCT magazine, accessory that monitors and cleans filament in 3D printers launched by Canadian designers. Accessed 28 Nov 2016Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Davies S (2017) TCT magazine, Airwolf 3D debuting hydrofill water-soluble support material at CES. Accessed 5 Jan 2017Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Verbatim (2017) TCT magazine, Verbatim launches new high-performance water-soluble support material. Accessed 8 Jun 2017Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Woodside P (2012) Aurora’s additive manufacturing wing showcased in NAMII announcement. In: Aurora flight sciences, August 17, 2012Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Espinosa HD et al (2011) Tablet-level origin of toughening in abalone shells and translation to synthetic composite materials. Nat Commun.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1172 Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wei X et al (2015) 3D printable graphene composite. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11181 Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Calignano F et al (2015) Additive manufacturing of a microbial fuel cell—a detailed study. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17373 Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Huber C et al (2017) 3D printing of polymer-bonded rare-earth magnets with a variable magnetic compound fraction for a predefined stray field. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09864-0 Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Inks R et al (2017) Robust and elastic lunar and martian structures from 3D-printed. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44931 Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Shofner M, Lozano K, Rodríguez Macías F, Barrera E (2003) Nanofiber reinforced polymers prepared by fused deposition modeling. J Appl Polym Sci 89:3081–3090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ning F, Cong W, Qiu J, Wei J, Wang S (2015) Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modeling. Compos Part B Eng 80:369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Love LJ et al (2014) The importance of carbon fiber to polymer additive manufacturing. J Mater Res 29:1893–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zhong W, Li F, Zhang Z, Song L, Li Z (2001) Short fiber reinforced composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater Sci Eng A 301:125–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gray R, Baird D, Bøhn J (1998) Thermoplastic composites reinforced with long fiber thermotropic liquid crystalline polymers for fused deposition modeling. Polym Compos 19:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sarracanie M et al (2015) Low-cost high-performance MRI. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15177 Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wu S-Y et al (2015) 3D-printed microelectronics for integrated circuitry and passive wireless sensors. Microsyst Nanoeng.  https://doi.org/10.1038/micronano.2015.13 Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wei X et al (2015) 3D printable graphene composite. Sci Rep 5:11181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Foster CW et al (2017) 3D printed graphene based energy storage devices. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42233 Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Therriault D, White SR, Lewis JA (2003) Chaotic mixing in three-dimensional microvascular networks fabricated by direct-write assembly. Nat Mater 2:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kitson PJ, Rosnes MH, Sans V et al (2012) Configurable 3D-printed millifluidic and microfluidic ‘lab on a chip’ reactionware devices. Lab Chip 12:3267–3271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Paydar OH, Paredes CN, Hwang Y et al (2014) Characterization of 3D-printed microfluidic chip interconnects with integrated o-ring. Sens Actuators A Phys 205:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Comina G, Suska A, Filippini D (2014) PDMS lab-on-a-chip fabrication using 3D printed templates. Lab Chip 14:424–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gross BC, Erkal JL, Lockwood SY et al (2014) Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences. Anal Chem 86:3240–3253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Erkal JL, Selimovic A, Gross BC et al (2014) 3D printed microfluidic devices with integrated versatile and reusable electrodes. Lab Chip 14:2023–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Lee KG, Park KJ, Seok S et al (2014) 3D printed modules for integrated microfluidic devices. RSC Adv 4:32876–32880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Chung J et al (2017) Micro-drive and headgear for chronic implant and recovery of optoelectronic probes. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03340-5 Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Castles F et al (2016) Microwave dielectric characterisation of 3D-printed BaTiO3/ABS polymer composites. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22714 Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Lee E et al (2017) Theoretical investigations on microwave Fano resonances in 3D-printable hollow dielectric resonators. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16501-3 Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ciampa F et al (2017) Phononic crystal waveguide transducers for nonlinear elastic wave sensing. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14594-4 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Feng LY (2014) Study on the status quo and problems of 3D printed buildings in China. Glob J Hum Soc Sci H Interdiscip 14(5):1–8Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Perkins I, Skitmore M (2015) Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry: a review. Int J Constr Manag 15(1):1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1012136 Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Oberti I, Plantamura F (2015) Is 3D printed house sustainable? Politecnico di Milano, Dept. Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (ABC)CISBAT 2015—September 9–11, 2015—Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Uppala SS, Tadikamalla MR (2017) A review on 3D printing of concrete—the future of sustainable construction. I-manager’s J Civ Eng 7(3):49–62.  https://doi.org/10.26634/jce.7.3.13610 Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Henkel J et al (2013) Bone regeneration based on tissue engineering conceptions—a 21st century perspective. Bone Res 1:216–248.  https://doi.org/10.4248/BR201303002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Visser J et al (2015) Reinforcement of hydrogels using three-dimensionally printed microfibers. Nat Commun.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7933 Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Dong L et al (2017) 3D-printed poly(ε-caprolactone) Scaffold integrated with cell-laden chitosan hydrogels for bone tissue engineering. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13838-7 Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Hollister SJ (2005) Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 4:518–524.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Zein I, Humacher DW, Tan KC, Teoh SH (2001) Fused deposition modeling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials 23:1169–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Okolo B (2016) TCT magazine, Indmatec PEEK material undergoing qualification tests for medical 3D printing. Accessed 15 Jan 2016Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Chen H et al (2016) Application of FDM three-dimensional printing technology in the digital manufacture of custom edentulous mandible trays. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19207 Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Xiang X et al (2017) Fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printed tablets for intragastric floating delivery of domperidone. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03097-x Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wang J-C et al (2017) Preparation of active 3D film patches via aligned fiber electrohydrodynamic (EHD) printing. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43924 Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Bao X et al (2017) 3D biomimetic artificial bone scaffolds with dual-cytokines spatiotemporal delivery for large weight-bearing bone defect repair. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08412-0 Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Tsai KJ et al (2017) Biomimetic heterogenous elastic tissue development. NPJ Regen Med.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-017-0021-4 Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Shen S et al (2017) Freeform fabrication of tissue-simulating phantom for potential use of surgical planning in conjoined twins separation surgery. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08579-6 Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yang Y et al (2017) Impact of spatial characteristics in the left stenotic coronary artery on the hemodynamics and visualization of 3D replica models. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15620-1 Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Liu Y et al (2017) Fabrication of cerebral aneurysm simulator with a desktop 3D printer. Sci Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44301 Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Kitson PJ et al (2016) 3D printing of versatile reactionware for chemical synthesis. Nat Protoc 11:920–936.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Comb JW et al (2003) Patent application number—WO2003089702, “High-precision modeling filament”. Accessed 30 Oct 2003Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Pridöhl M et al (2014) Patent application number—WO2014072148, “Use and production of coated filaments for extrusion-based 3d printing processes. Accessed 15 May 2014Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Qiao L et al (2015) Patent application number—CN104742273, “Fused deposition modeling method of heat-conduction material. Accessed 01 Jul 2015Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Yu J (2015) Patent application number—CN204431743, “FDM (fused deposition modeling)-based 3D printer capable of realizing continuous filament composition. Accessed 01 Jul 2015Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    You SH et al (2015) Patent application number—KR1020150042666, “Filament case”. Accessed 21 Apr 2015Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Bracha A et al (2015) Patent application number—WO2015059603, “Detachable filament guide and nozzle module for 3d printers”. Accessed 30 Apr 2015Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    You SH et al (2015) Patent application number—KR1020150051321, “multi-stage case for stacking and supplying three or more materials (filaments) of fused deposition modeling (fdm) or fused filament fabrication (fff)-type 3d printer”. Accessed 13 May 2015Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Priedel M et al (2015) Patent application number—CN104781063, “use and production of coated filaments for extrusion-based 3D printing processes”. Accessed 15 Jul 2015Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Cho YS, Young S et al (2015) Patent application number—KR1020150102796, “non-contact type fused deposition modeling device and FDM head unit. Accessed 08 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Pridöhl M et al (2015) Patent application number—EP2917025, “use and production of coated filaments for extrusion-based 3d printing processes. Accessed 16 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Molina R, Sergio I et al (2015) Patent application number—WO2015173439, “method for producing starting materials for additive manufacturing. Accessed 19 Nov 2015Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Yasusi K (2015) Patent application number—US20150367571, “3D printing method that enables arraying horizontal filaments without support. Accessed 24 Dec 2015Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Da Silva MMA (2016) Patent application number—EP2985134, “process and apparatus to colour a part manufactured by 3d printing. Accessed 17 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Hirofumi H et al (2016) Patent application number—US20160129644, “apparatus for modeling three-dimensional object and method for modeling three-dimensional object. Accessed 12 May 2016Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Park JS et al (2016) Patent application number—KR1020160059302, “filament resin composition for fdm-3d printing, filament including same for fdm-3d printing, and fdm-3d printing molded product produced by using. Accessed 26 May 2016Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Bracha A, Eran G-O (2016) Patent application number—US20170072613, “detachable filament guide and nozzle module for 3D printers. Accessed 29 Sept 2016Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Salice P et al (2017) Patent application number—WO2017005730, “use of polymer compositions for the production of filaments for fused deposition modelling. Accessed 12 Jan 2017Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Hsu K (2017) Patent application number—US20170072633, “systems and methods for laser preheating in connection with fused deposition modeling. Accessed 16 Mar 2017Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Basit A et al Patent application number—WO2017134418, “oral dosage products and processes. Accessed 10 Aug 2017Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Hikmet R et al (2017) Patent application number—WO2017207514, “filaments for fused deposition modeling including an electronic component”. Accessed 07 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Wesselink T et al (2017) Patent application number—WO2017212037, “fused deposition modeling filament production apparatus”. Accessed 14 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Boyce G (2016) TCT magazine, Haydale Composite Solutions to launch Graphene Enhanced PLA for 3D printing. Accessed 11 Aug 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKPR Institute of Engineering and TechnologyCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations