The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer
Abstract
Purpose: – This paper aims to evaluate the material properties and dimensional accuracy of a MakerBot Replicator 2 desktop 3D printer. Design/methodology/approach: – A design of experiments (DOE) test protocol was applied to determine the effect of the following variables on the material properties of 3D printed part: layer height, per cent infill and print orientation using a MakerBot Replicator 2 printer. Classical laminate plate theory was used to compare results from the DOE experiments with theoretically predicted elastic moduli for the tensile samples. Dimensional accuracy of test samples was also investigated. Findings: – DOE results suggest that per cent infill has a significant effect on the longitudinal elastic modulus and ultimate strength of the test specimens, whereas print orientation and layer thickness fail to achieve significance. Dimensional analysis of test specimens shows that the test specimen varied significantly (p < 0.05) from the nominal print dimensions. Practical implications: – Although desktop 3D printers are an attractive manufacturing option to quickly produce functional components, this study suggests that users must be aware of this manufacturing process’ inherent limitations, especially for components requiring high geometric tolerance or specific material properties. Therefore, higher quality 3D printers and more detailed investigation into the MakerBot MakerWare printing settings are recommended if consistent material properties or geometries are required. Originality/value: – Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a rapidly expanding manufacturing method. Initially, 3D printing was used for prototyping, but now this method is being used to create functional final products. In recent years, desktop 3D printers have become commercially available to academics and hobbyists as a means of rapid component manufacturing. Although these desktop printers are able to facilitate reduced manufacturing times, material costs and labor costs, relatively little literature exists to quantify the physical properties of the printed material as well as the dimensional consistency of the printing 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
Recent Developments in Fused Deposition Modeling-Based 3D Printing of Polymers and Their Composites
Rahim, T. N. A. T., Abdullah, A. M., & Md Akil, H. (2019) · Polymer Reviews · doi:10.1080/15583724.2019.1597883 · Cited by 452
Hao, W., Liu, Y., Zhou, H., Chen, H., & Fang, D. (2018) · Polymer Testing · doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.11.004 · Cited by 319
Post-Production Finishing Processes Utilized in 3D Printing Technologies
Kantaros, A., Ganetsos, T., Petrescu, F., Ungureanu, L., & Munteanu, I. (2024) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr12030595 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Melenka, G. W., Schofield, J. S., Dawson, M. R., & Carey, J. P.
- Venue
- Rapid Prototyping Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2015-08-17
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 618-627
- ISSN
- 1355-2546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1686988970
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.59
- 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: Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/rpj-09-2013-0093
- The paper
- Melenka, G. W., Schofield, J. S., Dawson, M. R., & Carey, J. P. (2015). Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer. Rapid Prototyping Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/rpj-09-2013-0093
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.