The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: II. Materials, dimensional accuracy, and surface roughness
Abstract
Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to critically review the literature related to dimensional accuracy and surface roughness for fused deposition modeling and similar extrusion-based additive manufacturing or rapid prototyping processes. Design/methodology/approach: – A systematic review of the literature was carried out by focusing on the relationship between process and product design parameters and the dimensional and surface properties of finished parts. Methods for evaluating these performance parameters are also reviewed. Findings: – Fused deposition modeling® and related processes are the most widely used polymer rapid prototyping processes. For many applications, resolution, dimensional accuracy and surface roughness are among the most important properties in final parts. The influence of feedstock properties and system design on dimensional accuracy and resolution is reviewed. Thermal warping and shrinkage are often major sources of dimensional error in finished parts. This phenomenon is explored along with various approaches for evaluating dimensional accuracy. Product design parameters, in particular, slice height, strongly impact surface roughness. A geometric model for surface roughness is also reviewed. Originality/value: – This represents the first review of extrusion AM processes focusing on dimensional accuracy and surface roughness. Understanding and improving relationships between materials, design parameters and the ultimate properties of finished parts will be key to improving extrusion AM processes and expanding their applications.
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
Yang, C., Tian, X., Li, D., Cao, Y., Zhao, F., & Shi, C. (2017) · Journal of Materials Processing Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2017.04.027 · Cited by 662
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
Kafle, A., Luis, E., Silwal, R., Pan, H. M., Shrestha, P. L., & Bastola, A. K. (2021) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym13183101 · Cited by 587
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, B. N., & Gold, S. A.
- Venue
- Rapid Prototyping Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2015-04-20
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 250-261
- ISSN
- 1355-2546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078307486
- Cited by
- 770
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 36.88
- 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: II. Materials, dimensional accuracy, and surface roughness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/rpj-02-2013-0017
- The paper
- Turner, B. N., & Gold, S. A. (2015). A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: II. Materials, dimensional accuracy, and surface roughness. Rapid Prototyping Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-02-2013-0017
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.