Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Physics: Conference
Series
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Investigation of bio-based and recycled printing materials for additive
manufacturing
To cite this article: S Junk and P Vögele 2024
J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.
2692 012042
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 180.149.5.68 on 10/02/2024 at 12:45
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
1
Investigation of bio-based and recycled printing materials for
additive manufacturing
S Junk and P Vögele
Offenburg University, Rapid Prototyping Lab, Campus Gengenbach, Klosterstr. 14,
77723 Gengenbach, Germany
E-mail: stefan.junk@hs-offenburg.de
Abstract. Additive manufacturing (AM) processes are becoming increasingly important
alongside conventional processes. As a result, the consumption of materials is also increasing.
The most widespread process in polymer AM is Fused Layer Modelling (FLM). Today, the FDM
process often uses synthetically produced materials based on petrochemical processes. However,
there is little knowledge about which bio-based and recycled polymer materials are suitable for
sustainable polymer AM. The aim of this paper is to carry out investigations of eight selected
materials, which are already commercially available, to gain insights into their suitability as
materials for polymer AM. These materials are divided into four categories: conventional,
recycled, bio-based and fibre-reinforced thermoplastics. The evaluation model consists of a point
system in which the materials are evaluated according to various weighted criteria. For technical,
economic and ecological evaluation meaningful criterions were developed and applied. Based
on the evaluations, three two-dimensional strength diagrams were developed, from which the
results of the materials, on two of the evaluations in each case, can be read. These results are
combined in a three-dimensional diagram. This representation provides the ability to make a
precise selection of bio-based or recycled materials for polymer AM.
1. Introduction
After the discovery of polymers as inexpensive yet robust materials in the 1950s, demand is still growing
rapidly today [1]. Polymers of all kinds are becoming increasingly popular because they proved to be
cheap and easy to process [2]. In addition, they could be used very flexibly for different purposes.
Among other things, this material group is excellently suited for packaging, beverage bottles and
housings, but polymers are also frequently used in the industrial sector. The low weight compared to
metals and the weather resistance also contribute to the high popularity of the polymers [3].
Due to the ever-increasing demand and relevance of ecological production and thus also the rapidly
increasing relevance in the field of additive manufacturing, research is continuing in this area. New ways
of using new materials or methods to reduce the environmental footprint are constantly being explored.
In additive manufacturing, the use of bio-based and recycled materials could significantly improve the
eco-balance [4].Therefore, the question arises which bio-based or recycled polymer materials are
available on the market and which technical properties they offer? In addition, the economic and
ecological properties are also of interest in order to be able to make a suitable material selection.
2. Additive manufacturing using polymers
The term AM technologies covers a large number of different processes and materials [5]. The additive
processes for processing polymers according to ASTM52900 can be classified into four types:
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
2
• Additive manufacturing a 3D object by means of material extrusion (MEX) of plastic filaments:
This includes, among others, the common manufacturing method Fused Deposition Modelling
(FDM), which originates from the company Stratasys.
• Vat polymerisation of photopolymers (VPP): a bath with a photopolymer is cured locally by a
laser beam (e.g. stereolithography SLA) or over the surface with the aid of a projector or display
(e.g. digital light processing). In general, subsequent post-curing is necessary.
• Binder jetting (BJ) of photopolymers and curing of synthetic resins: Multi-Jet Modelling (MJM)
are examples. In these methods, a liquid resin is applied, which takes on a solid form when
irradiated with UV light.
• Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) by sintering a powder material: one method in this category is called
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS). In this process, the temperature in a heated building space is
raised to just before the melting point of the powder. A short laser pulse is then sufficient to
fuse and thus solidify the material at the desired location.
The common feature of the different groups is the layer-by-layer production of the print models. In each
of the methods, the component to be printed is built from scratch, by adding layers, hence the name of
additive manufacturing. The method of FDM printing is probably the most common 3D production
process [6]. The possibility of producing inexpensive components without additional tools not only
enables its entry into the professional environment, but also paves the way into the private households
of many hobby developers. The necessary simple and robust 3D printers, which can work without lasers,
UV light and heating, have contributed to the widespread use of this process. The easy handling of the
plastic filament, which is wound as a wire on a spool, also contributes to the success of FDM. Today,
there are many polymer materials on the market that can be processed by the open systems [7].
Therefore, this study concentrated on this process. In contrast, closed systems are often represented on
the market for the other processes, i.e. the manufacturers of the additive manufacturing systems also
produce the printing materials. This often limits the selection of available materials for users.
3. Material selection for the material extrusion of polymers
Many different types of polymers can be used for material extrusion. These are usually thermoplastics
that are melted in a nozzle during this process. Thermoplastics have a variety of properties and differ in
terms of stability, weight, thermal conductivity, printability, price, environmental impact and other
characteristics. The most commonly used materials for FDM include ABS, PETG and PLA. The
materials relevant to this contribution are the bio-based and recycled printing materials, as well as
composite fibre-reinforced (FR) printing materials, which usually consist of a mixture of bio-based and
additives from conventional or natural fibres [8, 9]. After extensive research, eight commercially
available printing materials from different original equipment manufacturer (OEM) were selected. In
the table 1, filaments are listed with their brand name, the materials they are made of and the tensile
strength. The market price was included in order to use it later for the economic analysis. For the cost
comparison, the two standard materials PETG and PLA are taken as a reference.
Table 1: Materials investigated
Brand name
OEM
Materials
Tensile strength
[MPa]
Costs
[%]
Prusament PETG
Prusa Research
PETG
47 ± 2
100
Prusament PLA
Prusa Research
PLA
51 ± 3
100
Prusament rPET
Prusa Research
Recycled PETG
43
78.6
Prusament rPLA
Prusa Research
Recycled PLA
49
78.6
Biofusion
Extrudr
PLA & Additive
55
125.0
NonOilen
Fillamentum
PLA & PHB
38.2
177.4
Dark Wood
Extrudr
PLA & Wood fibres
40
199.6
GreenTEC Pro Carbon
Extrudr
PLA & Carbon fibres
65
216.7
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
3
Pure PETG [10] is neither bio based nor recycled, it was only used for comparison with recycled PET
[11]. The pure PLA [12], which is a bio-based material, is also used for comparison with the recycled
PLA [13]. The two materials “Biofusion” [14] and “NonOilen” [15] are both based on PLA, which has
been supplemented with additives and PHB respectively. PHB is a polyester that can be fermentatively
produced from renewable raw materials. It belongs to the group of thermoplastic polyesters and is
therefore deformable under heat [16]. The material reinforced with carbon fibres provide a higher
strength, as the fibres themselves have a higher strength and can therefore additionally strengthen the
material [17]. Thus, the material “GreenTEC Pro Carbon” with carbon fibre reinforcement should bring
a significant improvement with a value of 65 MPa [18]. Interestingly, the tensile strength with added
wood fibres is only 40 MPa, which is worse than the conventional PLA [19].
4. Economic, ecological and technical evaluation model
The evaluation is based on the weighted point evaluation method. Various criteria for the three areas are
defined for the evaluation. The materials receive a point score pi for each criterion, which is used to
determine how well they meet the criterion. The maximum score is pmax=10. Due to the varying
relevance of the criteria, a weighting factor wi is also included in the evaluation. Thus, a value per
material can be determined for the ecological, economic and technical areas. In (1), this is demonstrated
with the example of the technical point value. In order to plot the materials in the strength diagram, all
values were normalized to a maximum of 1. This resulted in three values in the range 0.0 to 1.0 for each
material.
The following criteria were determined with the help of data sheets [10-16, 18, 19] and the experience
of the authors. The cost evaluation can be determined on the basis of the purchase costs with the help of
the manufacturer's data (see table 1). Additional costs can be estimated, for example, if a change in
nozzle diameter or nozzle material is necessary. Further criteria, in particular for ecological evaluation,
were assessed on the basis of literature references [7–9, 20]. The technical evaluation is based on the
values determined in the experiments and tests described in section 5 and 6.
4.1. Economic criteria:
Processing time: is of great importance in the economic viability of 3D printers. Depending on the
material, printing can be done at different speeds. Some materials need a slower speed and are therefore
much less economical. Time is weighted highest as the most important factor at 0.35.
Costs of the filament: costs of the material can vary greatly. Since the material costs are lower compared
to the processing time, they play a somewhat smaller but still important role and are weighted with 0.3.
Change of nozzle: Most filaments can be printed with a standard 0.4 mm nozzle. For fibre-reinforced
print materials, however, a nozzle size of 0.6 mm or larger is recommended to avoid clogging the nozzle.
When changing the nozzle, the 3D printer stops and thus cannot produce. Due to the fact that the general
conditions vary greatly, this criterion is given a low rating with an offset factor of 0.15.
Nozzle wear costs: Pure polymers usually have a low abrasive effect and can therefore be used with
cheaper brass nozzles. Fibre-reinforced polymers have a high abrasive effect and are therefore used with
nickel-coated nozzles or nozzles made of hardened steel, which are much more expensive. Accordingly,
the costs of the nozzle play a rather subordinate role here and are given a weighting of 0.2.
4.2. Ecological criteria
CO2 footprint of production: If the CO2 footprint of the production process is high, the material is rated
lower. This criterion is weighted higher (0.3) as it plays an important role in sustainable production.
Biodegradability: this criterion has a strong impact on the plastic waste that ends up in the environment.
If a material can be biodegraded within a short time, this has a strong influence on how much plastic
survives in nature. Therefore, this attribute receives the highest weighting of 0.35.
Reusability: Once a material can be reused, there is an incentive to keep the raw material in the recycling
cycle. However, it must also be considered that many products do not re-enter the cycle, but end up in
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
4
residual waste and eventually landfill. This is partly due to the lack or absence of labelling of the material
in the finished product. Due to the fact that, despite theoretical recyclability, printing materials are only
partially recycled, this criterion is to be evaluated accordingly with a factor of 0.25 in the middle.
Probability of rejects: This criterion refers to materials for which non-compliance with the
corresponding requirements. It also increases the amount of waste produced from materials which can
cause problems when printed. However, as the operator's experience increases, problems like these
should be easier to control, so this criterion is given a multiplier of 0.1.
4.3. Technical criteria:
Dimensional accuracy: The criteria represents the difference between the actual and target dimensions
and can be specified as a percentage deviation. If the deviation is too large, the printed object may
become unusable. Since dimensional accuracy plays a major role, it is weighted with 0.25.
Layer adhesion: The adhesion between the individual layers is an important attribute for the stability of
the printed object. It is largely responsible for the robust structure of the body. If the layer adhesion is
not high enough, a component may lose its technical usability and thus cannot be used. For this reason,
it is given a rating of 0.25, as is dimensional stability.
Tensile strength: If the tensile strength is higher, a correspondingly higher number of points is awarded.
In order to exclude errors caused by non-optimised parameters during printing, the manufacturer's
specifications for the filaments are used for this evaluation. However, the tensile strength is only relevant
for highly loaded application. For this reason, a somewhat lower weighting of 0.15 is used.
Temperature resilience: This criterion refers to the resistance of the materials to temperatures. However,
temperature resistance only plays a role in extreme cases or for certain applications. For this reason, a
somewhat lower multiplier of 0.15 is used.
Printability: How well a material can be printed depends on various factors. For example, a susceptibility
to warping of the material reduces the printability. Criteria such as poor layer adhesion also have a
negative effect on the printability of the filament. Since poor printability can lead to increased problems
during printing and prints may have to be restarted, a lot of time can quickly be lost. Therefore, the
printability is weighted with 0.2 in the middle.
5. Experimental procedure
The technical evaluation included tensile testing, fracture surface examination and dimensional
inspection. The FDM 3D printer "Original Prusa i3 MK3S+" from the Czech manufacturer Prusa
Research was used. This 3D printer is characterised by a wide range of possible printing materials and
easy handling [21] and is open to the use of materials from both OEM and other suppliers. The printing
parameters, e.g. nozzle temperature, temperature of the printing bed, were taken from the manufacturer's
specifications. In general, a nozzle diameter of 0.4 mm was used. For the FR materials a nozzle with 0.6
mm was deliberately used to avoid clogging by the fibres.
The standard DIN EN ISO 527 was used for the specimens of the tensile test. The specimen was
modelled in the cloud-based CAD programme Onshape [22]. The dimensions are those of type 1A,
which is presented in the second part of the standard. The tensile specimens were printed with 30%,
60% and 100% filling. After the tensile tests were carried out, the surfaces of the fractures could be
analysed to gain possible insights into anomalies in the tensile tests and the fracture behaviour. The
magnification was carried out using the scanning electron microscope (SEM) "JSM-6610LV" from the
manufacturer Jeol. For this purpose, the samples were gold-plated. After gold plating, the samples were
placed in the SEM and photographed at 40x and 500x magnification. For the examination of the
dimensional accuracy, a sample was developed that contains a gradation of different dimensions. This
allows the dimensional accuracy of the different materials to be compared with each other. The samples
were to be used to measure the internal dimensions of eleven different apertures. A digital calliper gauge
with a resolution of 0.01 mm was used as measuring equipment.
6. Test results
In the following, the test results are summarised and the results of the SEM examinations are added for
explanation. Table 2 shows the most important measured values and findings for the materials examined.
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
5
Table 2: Measured technical properties
Brand name
Strength
[MPa]
Dev.
[%]
Examination of the fractured surfaces using SEM
Dimen.
dev. [%]
Prusament PETG
37.2
-20.8
smooth fracturing surface
+0.07
Prusament PLA
51.9
+1.8
smooth fracturing surface, slight stringing visible
+0.21
Prusament rPET
38.1
-11.3
smooth and splinter-free fracture behaviour in the
centre, but more uneven at the edges
+0.11
Prusament rPLA
50.6
+2.6
striking fusion at the edge
+0.06
Biofusion
39.3
-28.5
very smooth fracture behavior of the layers, but
crumbling out with basalt-like structure
+0.16
NonOilen
33.3
-12.8
fibrous structure visible when torn open from the side
-0.24
Dark Wood
26.7
-33.2
Porous structure, many air inclusions
-3.76
GreenTEC Pro
Carbon
42.4
-34.7
porous structure, low adhesion between carbon fibre
and matrix
-0.40
The measured tensile strength for PETG are significantly below the manufacturer's specifications. This
significant deviation cannot be confirmed from other studies [23] and is probably due to incorrect 3D
printing parameters. The measured tensile strength for rPLA deviate from the data sheet, but agree with
the results of other studies [24]. The fractures also show the characteristic surfaces for the two printing
materials. Deviations in dimensional accuracy were 0.15 % lower for the rPLA material than for PLA.
For the materials rPET and PETG, the deviations are slightly better with a difference of 0.04 %.
Specimens printed from the “BioFusion” material showed poor layer adhesion. This was confirmed by
the breaking off of the edge layers during the tensile test and by examination with the SEM (see figure
1a). To ensure successful printing of this material, the parameters should be adjusted until the
aforementioned problem is eliminated. Similarly, a deviation in tensile strength of -15.7 MPa (-12.8 %)
from the data sheet was found here. Interestingly, when examining the surface of the test specimens
made of “NonOilen”, a fibrous structure was found in the case of laterally torn filaments (see figure 1b).
The filaments broken at 90° to filament strand had a smooth edge. AM using this material presented
particular difficulties, as extreme warping occurred, causing the models to detach from the print bed. As
a result, the print jobs had to be restarted several times. Finally, an enlargement of the support surface
was able to counteract the problem. The “Dark Wood” and “Carbon” composites both had a significantly
reduced tensile strength compared to the manufacturer's specification. The difference was -13.3 MPa
(Dark Wood) and -22.6 MPa (Carbon), as shown in Table 2.
Figure 1: SEM images with 40x magnification a) “BioFusion” with filling ratio of 100 %
and b) “NonOilen” with filling ratio of 30 %.
a) b)
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
6
One reason for this may be the strong occurrence of voids/air inclusions as detected in the surface
examination (see figure 2). This reduces the actual cross-sectional area and weakens the material.
Experimentation with different printing settings will most likely solve the problem. In addition, the
Wood building material was found to have a large deviation in dimensional stability, averaging 3.76%.
Figure 2: SEM images with 40x magnification a) “Dark Wood” with filling ratio of 100 %
and b) “GreenTEC Carbon” with filling ratio of 100 %.
7. Evaluation of the results
From the results, the strength diagrams can be derived according to ecological-economic, technical-
ecological and economic-technical projections. In the upper right corner in the point (1, 1) , also called
“ideal value”, would be placed a material that has achieved the full score for both one and the other axis.
In the environmental-economic evaluation (figure 3a), the two materials rPLA and PLA stand out
clearly. These are closest to the ideal value. The materials “NonOilen”, “Carbon”, “Dark Wood” and
“BioFusion” are on a similar ecological level. However, these materials, especially “NonOilen”,
perform worse economically. The materials rPET and PETG perform best economically, but worst
ecologically. The technical-ecological evaluation is shown in figure 3b. A cluster of the materials
carbon, rPLA and PLA has formed in the upper right corner, which combines the best from an ecological
and technical point of view. The material rPLA again proves to be clearly the best choice here. To the
left of the cluster are the materials PETG, rPET, “BioFusion” and “Dark Wood”, which together form a
diagonal sloping down to the right. It is also noticeable that the materials rPLA, PLA, “Carbon”,
“NonOilen” and “Dark Wood” are on a similar ecological level.
Figure 3: a) Strength diagram economic/ecological and b) Strength diagram ecological/technical.
a) b)
a) b)
Technical value
Ecological value
Ecological value
Economic value
Ideal value Ideal value
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
7
The figure 4a shows the projection according to economic/technical criteria. PETG is in the lead by a
slight margin. It has achieved the highest score on the technical and on the economic axis. Just behind
it come the materials rPLA, PLA and rPET, the latter having achieved exactly the same score and thus
lying on top of each other. The “NonOilen” material performs worst in economic terms. This is mainly
due to the poor printability due to the extreme warping and the long printing time. Technically, the
material carbon is one of the front runners. The high filament costs, as well as the costs for set-up and
nozzle wear, worsen the economic viability of the material. Printing with the filament “Biofusion” is
technically less well positioned due to poor layer adhesion, but PETG is undercut by the filament with
added wood fibers "Dark Wood". In particular, the strong deviations in the dimensional stability analysis
and the reduced tensile strength worsen the technical value of this filament.
With the 3D calculator of "geogebra.org" it is possible to represent points in a three-dimensional space
[25]. Accordingly, the coordinates of the eight filaments could be entered into the system to convert the
information from the three two-dimensional projection into a single 3D strength diagram (see figure 4b).
A material achieving the ideal score in all three dimensions would be congruent with the upper right
corner of the cube. The printing material rPLA scored the highest when all three areas were considered,
placing it ahead of the starting material non-recycled PLA. The materials rPET and “Carbon” are in the
midfield and “Dark Wood” is the worst.
Figure 4: a) Strength diagram economic/ecological and b) 3D strength diagram with three criteria.
8. Conclusion
The results in this contribution include an investigation of various commercially available 3D printing
materials. For this purpose, materials were investigated which fulfil the criterion "recycled" and/or "bio-
based". The investigations of the technical criteria show that despite compliance with the manufacturer's
specifications for 3D printing, the fibre-reinforced materials in particular show significant deviations in
tensile strength. Some of these deviations are also found in the literature and can be explained, for
example, by defects that become visible using SEM. With the exception of one material the dimensional
deviations of the filaments are quite satisfactory. The overall comparison including all areas shows that
the recycled materials rPLA and rPET can definitely keep up with the conventional materials. The
investigations also show that the cost advantages of some recycled 3D printing materials available on
the market can already be used today in combination with the ecological advantages.
The use of bio-based and recycled materials for FDM offers a real opportunity to mitigate the impact of
production on the environment. The reintegration of materials back into the recycling loop ensures a
reduction in waste, while maintaining the same technical value over several cycles. In the case of
composites, further research is needed to achieve high-quality results.
a) b)
Technical value
Economic value
Economic value
Technical value
Ecological value
Ideal value
Ideal value
7th International Conference of Engineering Against Failure
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2692 (2024) 012042
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2692/1/012042
8
References
[1] Maris J, Bourdon S, Brossard J-M, Cauret L, Fontaine L and Montembault V 2018 Mechanical
recycling: Compatibilization of mixed thermoplastic wastes Polymer Degradation and Stability
147 245–66
[2] Ashcroft W R 2017 Industrial polymer applications: Essential chemistry and technology
(Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, RSC Publishing)
[3] Jasiuk I, Abueidda D W, Kozuch C, Pang S, Su F Y and McKittrick J 2018 An Overview on
Additive Manufacturing of Polymers JOM 70 275–83
[4] Daminabo S C, Goel S, Grammatikos S A, Nezhad H Y and Thakur V K 2020 Fused deposition
modeling-based additive manufacturing (3D printing): techniques for polymer material systems
Materials Today Chemistry 16 100248
[5] Zhang Y, Jarosinski W, Jung Y-G and Zhang J 2018 Additive manufacturing processes and
equipment Additive Manufacturing (Elsevier) pp 39–51
[6] Gordelier T J, Thies P R, Turner L and Johanning L 2019 Optimising the FDM additive manu-
facturing process to achieve maximum tensile strength: a state-of-the-art review RPJ 25 953–71
[7] Doshi M, Mahale A, Kumar Singh S and Deshmukh S 2022 Printing parameters and materials
affecting mechanical properties of FDM-3D printed Parts: Perspective and prospects Materials
Today: Proceedings 50 2269–75
[8] Lee C H, Padzil F N B M, Lee S H, Ainun Z M A'a and Abdullah L C 2021 Potential for Natural
Fiber Reinforcement in PLA Polymer Filaments for Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Additive
Manufacturing: A Review Polymers 13
[9] Friedel A and Junk S 2023 Potential Analysis for the Use of Bio-Based Plastics with Natural
Fiber Reinforcement in Additive Manufacturing Manufacturing Driving Circular Economy
(Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering) ed H Kohl et al (Cham: Springer) pp 285–93
[10] PRUSA Polymers 2022 Technical datasheet Prusament PETG
[11] PRUSA Polymers 2022 Technical Data Sheet Pusament PETG Recycled
[12] PRUSA Polymers 2022 Technical datasheet Prusament PLA
[13] PRUSA Polymers 2022 Technical Data sheet Prusament PLA Recycled
[14] Extrudr 2020 Material Data Sheet BioFusion
[15] Fillamentum 2021 Technical Data Sheet NonOilen
[16] Wang S, Daelemans L, Fiorio R, Gou M, D'hooge D R, Clerck K de and Cardon L 2019
Improving Mechanical Properties for Extrusion-Based Additive Manufacturing of Poly(Lactic
Acid) by Annealing and Blending with Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate) Polymers 11
[17] Naranjo-Lozada J, Ahuett-Garza H, Orta-Castañón P, Verbeeten W MH and Sáiz-González D
2019 Tensile properties and failure behavior of chopped and continuous carbon fiber composites
produced by additive manufacturing Additive Manufacturing 26 227–41
[18] Extrudr 2020 Material Data Sheet GreenTEC Pro Carbon
[19] Extrudr 2022 Material Data Sheet Wood
[20] Dey A, Roan Eagle I N and Yodo N 2021 A Review on Filament Materials for Fused Filament
Fabrication JMMP 5 69
[21] Marșavina L, Vălean C, Mărghitaș M, Linul E, Razavi N, Berto F and Brighenti R 2022 Effect of
the manufacturing parameters on the tensile and fracture properties of FDM 3D-printed PLA
specimens Engineering Fracture Mechanics 274 108766
[22] Junk S and Kuen C 2016 Review of Open Source and Freeware CAD Systems for Use with 3D-
Printing Procedia CIRP 50 430–5
[23] Sedlak J, Joska Z, Hrbackova L, Jurickova E, Hrusecka D and Horak O 2023 Determination of
Mechanical Properties of Plastic Components Made by 3D Printing Manufacturing Technology 22
733–46
[24] Väisänen A J K, Alonen L, Ylönen S, Lyijynen I and Hyttinen M 2021 The impact of thermal
reprocessing of 3D printable polymers on their mechanical performance and airborne pollutant
profiles J Polym Res 28 9516
[25] Hohenwarter M and Jones K 2007 Ways of linking geometry and algebra, the case of Geogebra
Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics 27 (3) 126–31
