Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer

Melenka, Garrett W., Schofield, Jonathon S., Dawson, Michael R., Carey, Jason P.·2015·Rapid Prototyping Journal

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/rpj-09-2013-0093

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 169

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.