MARATTO

article · Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale

Experimental calibration of a virtual raster section for high-accuracy FDM simulation in Abaqus

Abstract

This study presents an experimentally calibrated methodology to enhance the predictive accuracy of finite element simulations for Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) parts in Abaqus by replacing idealized filament geometry with a physically accurate “corrected virtual raster section.” A Box-Behnken Design of Experiments (DoE) across 27 ABS specimens systematically quantifies how key printing parameters, layer thickness, raster width, extrusion temperature, and print speed, influence the true cross-sectional geometry of deposited filaments, as measured via Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). These data inform a predictive mathematical model that transforms the conventional circular filament shape into an experimentally grounded oval-rectangular profile, accurately capturing extrusion-induced flattening and lateral spreading. The calibrated virtual section is integrated into a custom Python-based tool that parses G-code toolpaths and sweeps the corrected geometry along deposition trajectories to generate high-fidelity, mesh-ready Abaqus models. The workflow is validated through tensile testing of ASTM D638 specimens printed at 0°, 45°, and 90° raster orientations (n=3 per orientation). Error analysis against the experimental mean demonstrates that the corrected model reduces simulation errors from catastrophic levels in the non-corrected approach (7–92% relative error, 2.5–19 MPa absolute) to engineering-grade precision (0.03–7% relative error, ≤1.3 MPa absolute). This workflow bridges G-code to physical behavior, enabling reliable simulation of FDM anisotropy.

Research topics

  • Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
  • Manufacturing Process and Optimization

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.3221/igf-esis.76.03

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.