The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling
Abstract
Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to systematically and critically review the literature related to process design and modeling of fused deposition modeling (FDM) and similar extrusion-based additive manufacturing (AM) or rapid prototyping processes. Design/methodology/approach: – A systematic review of the literature focusing on process design and mathematical process modeling was carried out. Findings: – FDM and similar processes are among the most widely used rapid prototyping processes with growing application in finished part manufacturing. Key elements of the typical processes, including the material feed mechanism, liquefier and print nozzle; the build surface and environment; and approaches to part finishing are described. Approaches to estimating the motor torque and power required to achieve a desired filament feed rate are presented. Models of required heat flux, shear on the melt and pressure drop in the liquefier are reviewed. On leaving the print nozzle, die swelling and bead cooling are considered. Approaches to modeling the spread of a deposited road of material and the bonding of polymer roads to one another are also reviewed. Originality/value: – To date, no other systematic review of process design and modeling research related to melt extrusion AM has been published. Understanding and improving process models will be key to improving system process controls, as well as enabling the development of advanced engineering material feedstocks for FDM processes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing
Everton, S. K., Hirsch, M., Stravroulakis, P., Leach, R. K., & Clare, A. T. (2016) · Materials & Design · doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099 · Cited by 1,469
Interface and performance of 3D printed continuous carbon fiber reinforced PLA composites
Tian, X., Liu, T., Yang, C., Wang, Q., & Li, D. (2016) · Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.05.032 · Cited by 1,162
Wickramasinghe, S., Do, T., & Tran, P. (2020) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym12071529 · Cited by 1,052
Recent Progress in Additive Manufacturing of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite
Goh, G. D., Yap, Y. L., Agarwala, S., & Yeong, W. Y. (2019) · Advanced Materials Technologies · doi:10.1002/admt.201800271 · Cited by 621
González-Henríquez, C. M., Sarabia-Vallejos, M. A., & Rodriguez-Hernandez, J. (2019) · Progress in Polymer Science · doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2019.03.001 · Cited by 562
Metadata
- Authors
- N. Turner, B., Strong, R., & A. Gold, S.
- Venue
- Rapid Prototyping Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2014-04-14
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 192-204
- ISSN
- 1355-2546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974962567
- Cited by
- 1,450
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 64.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/rpj-01-2013-0012
- The paper
- N. Turner, B., Strong, R., & A. Gold, S. (2014). A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling. Rapid Prototyping Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-01-2013-0012
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.