Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling

processed parts
Anoop Kumar Sood a, R.K. Ohdar b, S.S. Mahapatra c,*
a
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, Ranchi 834 003, India
b
Department of Forge Technology, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, Ranchi 834 003, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela 769008, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fused deposition modelling (FDM) is a fast growing rapid prototyping (RP) technology due to its ability to
Received 2 May 2009 build functional parts having complex geometrical shape in reasonable time period. The quality of built
Accepted 11 June 2009 parts depends on many process variables. In this study, five important process parameters such as layer
Available online 13 June 2009
thickness, orientation, raster angle, raster width and air gap are considered. Their influence on three
responses such as tensile, flexural and impact strength of test specimen is studied. Experiments are
Keywords: conducted based on central composite design (CCD) in order to reduce experimental runs. Empirical
Fused deposition modelling
models relating response and process parameters are developed. The validity of the models is tested
Strength
Distortion
using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Response surface plots for each response is analysed and optimal
Desirability function parameter setting for each response is determined. The major reason for weak strength may be attributed
ANOVA to distortion within or between the layers. Finally, concept of desirability function is used for maximizing
all responses simultaneously.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction related parameters and can be significantly improved with proper

Reduction of product development cycle time is a major con-
cern in industries to remain competitive in the marketplace and
hence, focus has shifted from traditional product development
methodology to rapid fabrication techniques like rapid prototyp-
ing (RP) [1]. The RP process is capable of building parts of any
complicated geometry in least possible time without incurring ex-
tra cost due of absence of tooling [2,3]. Another advantage with
RP is to produce functional assemblies by consolidating sub
assemblies into single unit at the computer aided design (CAD)
stage and thus reduces part counts, handling time, and storage
requirement and avoids mating and fit problem [4,5]. Although
RP is an efficient technology, full scale application has not gained
much emphasis because of compatibility of presently available
materials with RP technologies [6,7]. To overcome this limitation,
one approach may be development of new materials having supe-
rior characteristics than conventional materials and its compati-
bility with technology. Another convenient approach may be
suitably adjusting the process parameters during fabrication stage
so that properties may improve. A good number of researchers
have devoted towards the second approach [8–10]. Literature re-
veals that properties of RP parts are function of various process
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 0661 2462512; fax: +91 0661 2462926.
E-mail addresses: anoopkumarsood@gmail.com (A.K. Sood), rkohdar@yahoo.com
(R.K. Ohdar), mahapatrass2003@yahoo.com (S.S. Mahapatra).
adjustment. Since mechanical properties are important for func-
tional parts, it is absolutely essential to study influence of various
process parameters on mechanical properties so that improve-
ment can be made through selection of best settings. The present
study focus on assessment of mechanical properties viz. tensile,
flexural and impact strength of part fabricated using fused depo-
sition modelling (FDM) technology. As the relation between
mechanical property and process parameters is difficult to estab-
lish, attempt has been made to derive the empirical model be-
tween the processing parameters and mechanical properties
using response surface methodology. In addition, effect of each
process parameter on mechanical property is analysed. In actual
practice, the parts are subjected to various types of loadings and
it is necessary that the fabricated part must withhold more than
one mechanical property simultaneously. To address this issue, a
desirability function approach has been adopted to optimize more
than one response at a time.
2. Literature review
A study made by Es Said et al. [11] shows that raster orientation
causes alignment of polymer molecules along the direction of depo-
sition during fabrication and tensile, flexural and impact strength
depends on orientation. Since semi-molten filament is extruded
from nozzle tip and solidified in a chamber maintained at certain
temperature, change of phase is likely to occur. As a result volumet-

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.06.016
288 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295
ric shrinkage takes place resulting in weak interlayer bonding and
high porosity; hence, reduces load bearing area. Ahn et al. [12] have
pointed out that process parameters such as air gap and raster orien-
tation significantly affect the tensile strength of FDM processed part
as compared to other parameters like raster width, model tempera-
ture and colour through experimental design and analysis. In addi-
tion, built parts exhibit anisotropic properties as far as tensile
strength is concerned depending on build orientation. Khan et al.
[13] have concluded that layer thickness, raster angle and air gap
influence the elastic performance of the compliant FDM ABS proto-
type. Lee et al. [14] performed experiments on cylindrical parts
made from three RP processes such as FDM, 3D printer and nano
composite deposition (NCDS) to study the effect of build direction
on the compressive strength. Experimental results show that com-
pressive strength is 11.6% higher for axial FDM specimen as com-
pared to transverse FDM specimen. In 3D printing, diagonal
specimen possesses maximum compressive strength in comparison
to axial specimen. For NCDS, axial specimen showed compressive
strength 23.6% higher than that of transverse specimen. Out of three
RP technologies, parts built by NCDS are severely affected by the
build direction. When material is extruded from nozzle, it cools from
glass transition temperature to chamber temperature causing inner
stresses to be developed due to uneven deposition speed resulting in
inter layer and intra layer deformation that appear in the form of
cracking, de-lamination or even part fabrication failure. These phe-
nomena combine to affect the part strength and size [15]. It has been
observed that deformation is more in bottom layers than upper lay-
ers. Higher the stacking section lengths, large the deformations. If
chamber temperature increases, deformation will gradually de-
crease and become zero when chamber temperature equals glass
transition temperature of material. Therefore, it is proposed that
material used for part fabrication must have lower glass transition
temperature and linear shrinkage rate. Also the extruded fibre
length must be small. Bellehumeur et al. [16] have experimentally
demonstrated that bond quality between adjacent filaments de-
pends on envelope temperature and variations in the convective
conditions within the building part while testing flexural strength
specimen. Temperature profiles reveal that temperature at bottom
layers rises above the glass transition temperature and rapidly de-
creases in the direction of movement of extrusion head. The mini-
mum temperature increases with the number of layers.
Microphotographs indicate that diffusion phenomenon is more
prominent for adjacent filaments in bottom layers as compared to
upper layers. Simulation of FDM process using finite element analy-
sis (FEA) shows that distortion of parts is mainly caused due to accu-
mulation of residual stresses at the bottom surface of the part during
fabrication [17]. The foregoing discussions reveal that FDM
processed parts exhibit anisotropy of mechanical properties. Prop-
erties are sensitive to the processing parameters because parame-
ters affect meso-structure and fibre-to-fibre bond strength. Also
uneven heating and cooling cycles due to inherent nature of FDM
build methodology results in stress accumulation in the built part
resulting in distortion which is primarily responsible for week bond-
ing and thus affect the strength. It is also noticed that good number
of works in FDM strength modelling is devoted to study the effect of
processing conditions on the part strength but no significant effort is
made to develop the strength model in terms of FDM process param-
eters for prediction purpose. The present study uses the second or-
der response surface model to derive the required relationship
among process parameters and tensile, flexural and impact strength.
3. Experimental plan
Fused deposition modelling (FDM) by Stratasys Inc., USA is one
of the rapid prototyping (RP) processes that build part of any
geometry by sequential deposition of material on a layer by layer
basis. Unlike other RP systems which involve an array of lasers,
powders, and resins, this process uses heated thermoplastic fila-
ments which are extruded from the tip of nozzle in a prescribed
manner in a semi molten state and solidify at chamber tempera-
ture. Strength of FDM processed component primarily depend on
five important control factors such as layer thickness (A), part build
orientation (B), raster angle (C), raster width (D) and raster to ras-
ter gap (air gap) (E). They are defined as follows [18]:
(a) Orientation: Part build orientation or orientation refers to the
inclination of part in a build platform with respect to X, Y, Z
axis. X and Y-axis are considered parallel to build platform
and Z-axis is along the direction of part build.
(b) Layer thickness: It is a thickness of layer deposited by nozzle
and depends upon the type of nozzle used.
(c) Raster angle: It is a direction of raster relative to the x-axis of
build table.
(d) Part raster width (raster width): Width of raster pattern used
to fill interior regions of part curves.
(e) Raster to raster gap (air gap): It is the gap between two adja-
cent rasters on same layer.
Other factors are kept at their fixed level as shown in Table 1.
In order to build empirical model for tensile strength, flexural
strength and impact strength, experiments were conducted based
on central composite design (CCD) [19]. The CCD is capable of fit-
ting second order polynomial and is preferable if curvature is as-
sumed to be present in the system. To reduce the experiment
run, half factorial 2K design (K factors each at two levels) is consid-
ered. Maximum and minimum value of each factor is coded into +1
and 1, respectively using Eq. (1) so that all input factors are rep-
resented in same range.
 
xij  xi
nij ¼ 2
Dxi
P
2
xij ð1Þ
j¼1
xi ¼ and Dxi ¼ xi2  xi1
2
1  i  K; 1  j  2
where nij and xij are coded and actual value of jth level of ith factor,
respectively.
Apart from high and low levels of each factor, zero level (centre
point) and ±a level (axial points) of each factor is also included. To
reduce the number of levels due to machine constraints, face cen-
tred central composite design (FCCCD) in which a = 1 is considered.
This design locates the axial points on the centres of the faces of
cube and requires only three levels for each factor. Moreover, it
does not require as many centre points as spherical CCD. In prac-
tice, two or three centre points are sufficient. In order to get a rea-
sonable estimate of experimental error, six centre points are
chosen in the present work. Table 2 shows the factors and their
levels in terms of un-coded units as per FCCCD. For change in layer
thickness, change of nozzle is needed. Due to unavailability of noz-
zle corresponding to layer thickness value at centre point as indi-
Table 1
Fixed factors and their level.
Factor Level
Part fill style Perimeter raster
Contour width 0.4064 mm
Part interior style Solid normal
Visible surface Normal raster
XY and Z shrink factor 1.0038
Perimeter to raster air gap 0.0000 mm
 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295 289

Table 2
Factors and their level (modified).

Factor Symbol Unit Low level (1) Centre point (0) High level (+1)

Layer thickness A mm 0.1270 0.1780 0.2540
Orientation B degree 0.0000 15.000 30.000
Raster angle C degree 0.0000 30.000 60.000
Raster width D mm 0.4064 0.4564 0.5064
Air gap E mm 0.0000 0.0040 0.0080

cated by Eq. (1), modified centre point value for layer thickness is
taken. Half factorial 25 unblocked design having 16 experimental
run, 10 (2K, where K = 5) axial run and six centre run is shown in
Table 3 together with the response value for tensile, flexural and
impact strength for each experimental run.
4. Experimental procedure
Tensile strength at break is determined according to ISO
R527:1966 (Plastics: Determination of Tensile Properties). Fig. 1a
shows the shape and dimensions of test specimen. Flexural
strength at yield is determined as per ISO R178:1975 (Plastics –
Determination of Flexural Properties of Rigid Plastics) standard
for the specimen shown in Fig. 1b. Three point bending test is used
for flexural strength determination. The specimen is supported by
two supports and loaded in the middle by force until the test spec-
imen fractures. The tensile testing and three-point bending tests
were performed using Instron 1195 series IX automated material
testing system with crosshead speeds of 1 mm/s and 2 mm/s,
respectively. Charpy impact test performed in Instron Wolpert
pendulum impact test machine is used to determine the impact
strength of specimen shown in Fig. 1c in accordance with ISO
179:1982 (Plastics – Determination of Charpy Impact Strength of
Rigid Plastics). During impact testing, specimen is subjected to
quick and intense blow by hammer pendulum striking the speci-
men with a speed of 3.8 m/s. The impact energy absorbed is mea-
sure of the toughness of material and it is calculated by taking the
difference in potential energy of initial and final position of ham-
mer. Impact energy is converted into impact strength using Eq.
(2) for notched specimen
Ak
Impact strength ¼ ð2Þ
L1  L2
where Ak is impact energy in joules, L1 and L2 are the dimensions of
test specimen as explained in Fig. 1c.
Three specimens per experimental run are fabricated using FDM
Vantage SE machine for respective strength measurement. The 3D
models of specimen are modelled in CATIA V5 and exported as STL
file. STL file is imported to FDM software (Insight). Here, factors
(Table 2) are set as per experiment plan (Table 3). All tests are car-
ried out at the temperature 23 ± 2 °C and relative humidity 50 ± 5%
as per ISO R291:1977 (Plastics – Standard Atmospheres for Condi-
tioning and Testing). Mean of each experiment trial is taken as rep-
resented value of respective strength and shown in Table 3. The

Table 3
Experimental data obtained from the FCCCD runs.

Run order Factor (coded units) Tensile strength (MPa) Flexural strength (MPa) Impact strength (MJ/m2)
A B C D E
1 1 1 1 1 +1 15.6659 34.2989 0.367013
2 +1 1 1 1 1 16.1392 35.3593 0.429862
3 1 +1 1 1 1 9.1229 18.8296 0.363542
4 +1 +1 1 1 +1 13.2081 24.5193 0.426042
5 1 1 +1 1 1 16.7010 36.5796 0.375695
6 +1 1 +1 1 +1 17.9122 38.0993 0.462153
7 1 +1 +1 1 +1 18.0913 39.2423 0.395833
8 +1 +1 +1 1 1 14.0295 22.2167 0.466667
9 1 1 1 +1 1 14.4981 27.6040 0.342708
10 +1 1 1 +1 +1 14.8892 34.5569 0.429167
11 1 +1 1 +1 +1 11.0262 20.0259 0.379167
12 +1 +1 1 +1 1 14.7661 25.2563 0.450001
13 1 1 +1 +1 +1 15.4510 36.2904 0.375000
14 +1 1 +1 +1 1 15.9244 37.3507 0.437785
15 1 +1 +1 +1 1 11.8476 22.9759 0.419792
16 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 15.9328 28.8362 0.482292
17 1 0 0 0 0 13.4096 27.7241 0.397222
18 +1 0 0 0 0 15.8933 33.0710 0.44757
19 0 1 0 0 0 14.4153 34.7748 0.402082
20 0 +1 0 0 0 9.9505 25.2774 0.388539
21 0 0 1 0 0 13.7283 27.5715 0.382986
22 0 0 +1 0 0 14.7224 30.0818 0.401388
23 0 0 0 1 0 13.5607 28.9856 0.401041
24 0 0 0 +1 0 13.8388 28.8622 0.395833
25 0 0 0 0 1 13.6996 28.8063 0.405555
26 0 0 0 0 +1 13.8807 29.0359 0.409028
27 0 0 0 0 0 14.4088 29.7678 0.407292
28 0 0 0 0 0 13.0630 31.6717 0.396373
29 0 0 0 0 0 13.8460 30.1584 0.406558
30 0 0 0 0 0 13.8727 31.0388 0.397712
31 0 0 0 0 0 13.5914 29.1475 0.401156
32 0 0 0 0 0 13.2189 31.9426 0.410686
290 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295

Fig. 1. Test specimen, All dimensions are in mm: (a) tensile test specimen (Type 1), (b) flexural test specimen, and (c) impact test specimen ((Type A notch), L1 = 4,
L2 = 0.8  L1).

Table 4
ANOVA table.

Source DOF Tensile strength Flexural strength Impact strength

SS MS F p SS MS F p SS MS F p
Regression 20 112.482 5.6241 11.65 0.000 799.058 39.953 14.96 0.000 0.0293 0.00146 16.72 0.000
Linear 5 64.373 12.875 26.66 0.000 611.818 122.36 45.81 0.000 0.0258 0.00515 58.88 0.000
Square 5 14.966 2.9932 6.2 0.006 4.47 0.894 0.33 0.882 0.0019 0.00038 4.3 0.021
Interaction 10 33.143 3.3143 6.86 0.002 182.771 18.277 6.84 0.002 0.0016 0.00016 1.85 0.164
Residual 11 5.312 0.4829 29.383 2.671 0.001 8.8E05
Lack of fit 6 4.116 0.6861 2.87 0.134 23.245 3.874 3.16 0.114 0.0008 0.00013 4.03 0.074
Pure error 5 1.196 0.2392 6.138 1.228 0.0002 3.3E05
Total 31 117.794 828.442 0.0302

DOF, degree of freedom; SS, sum of square; MS, mean sum of square.

a 99 Mean 1.561251E-17 b 99
Mean 2.797242E-17
StDev 0.4140
95 95 StDev 0.005573
N 32
90 90 N 32
AD 0.365
AD 0.426
80 P-Value 0.416 80
70 70 P-Value 0.297
Percent

Percent

60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
5 5

1 1
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
Residual Residual

c 99
Mean -1.29063E-15
95 StDev 0.9736
90 N 32
AD 0.503
80
P-Value 0.190
70
Percent

60
50
40
30
20
10
5

1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Residual

Fig. 2. Normal probability plot of residual at 95% of confidence interval: (a) response is tensile strength, (b) response is impact strength, and (c) response is flexural strength.

material used for test specimen fabrication is acrylonitrile butadi- and styrene monomers and then polymerizing the monomers with
ene styrene (ABS P400). ABS is a carbon chain copolymer and free-radical initiators. It contains 90–100% acrylonitrile/butadiene/
belongs to styrene ter-polymer chemical family. It is made by dis- styrene resin and may also contain mineral oil (0–2%), tallow (0–
solving butadiene–styrene copolymer in a mixture of acrylonitrile 2%) and wax (0–2%). Its three structural units provide a balance
 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295
of properties with the acrylonitrile providing heat resistance, buta-
diene imparting good impact strength and the styrene gives the
copolymer its rigidity [20].
5. Analysis of experiments
Analysis of the experimental data obtained from FCCCD design
runs is done on MINITAB R14 software using full quadratic re-
sponse surface model as given by
X
k X
k XX
y ¼ b0 þ bi xi þ bii xi xi þ bij xi xj
i¼1 i¼1 i<j
where y is the response, xi is ith factor, k is total number of factors.
For significance check F value given in ANOVA table is used.
Probability of F value greater than calculated F value due to noise
is indicated by p value. If p value is less than 0.05, significance of
corresponding term is established. For lack of fit, p value must be
greater than 0.05. An insignificant lack of fit is desirable because
it indicates any term left out of model is not significant and devel-
oped model fits well. Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA), full
quadratic model was found to be suitable for tensile strength, flex-
ural strength and impact strength (Table 4) with regression p-value
less than 0.05 and lack of fit more then 0.05. For tensile strength, all
Fig. 3. Response surface for tensile strength.
291
the terms are significant where as square terms are insignificant
for flexural strength and interaction terms do not impart signifi-
cant effect on impact strength.
The t-test was performed to determine the individual signifi-
cant term at 95% of confidence level and final response surface
equations for tensile strength (TS), flexural strength (FS) and impact
strength (IS) are given from Eqs. (4)–(6), respectively, in terms of
un-coded units. The coefficient of determination (R2) which indi-
cates the percentage of total variation in the response explained
by the terms in the model is 95.5%, 96.5% and 96.8% for tensile,
flexural and impact strength, respectively.
ð3Þ
T S ¼ 13:5625 þ 0:7156A  1:3123B þ 0:9760C þ 0:5183E
þ 1:1671ðA  AÞ  1:3014ðB  BÞ  0:4363ðA  CÞ
þ 0:4364ðA  DÞ  0:4364ðA  EÞ þ 0:4364ðB  CÞ
þ 0:4898ðB  EÞ  0:5389ðC  DÞ þ 0:5389ðC  EÞ
 0:5389ðD  EÞ ð4Þ
F S ¼ 29:9178 þ 0:8719A  4:8741B þ 2:4251C  0:9096D
þ 1:6626E  1:7199ðA  CÞ þ 1:7412ðA  DÞ  1:1275ðA  EÞ
þ 1:0621ðB  EÞ þ 1:0621ðC  EÞ  1:0408ðD  EÞ ð5Þ
292 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295

IS ¼ 0:401992 þ 0:034198A þ 0:008356B þ 0:013673C
þ 0:021383ðA  AÞ þ 0:008077ðB  DÞ
Anderson–Darling (AD) normality test results are shown in Fig. 2 for
respective strength residue. Since p-value of the normality plots is
found to be above 0.05, it signifies that residue follows normal dis-
tribution. Once the models are validated, average relative error be-
tween the predicted value obtained by the model and experimental
result shown in Table 3 are found to be 6%, 3% and 2% for tensile,
flexural and impact strength, respectively. Small percentage of er-
rors proves the suitability of above models for practical engineering
applications.
separation occurs in a plane approximately normal to a tensile
ð6Þ stress. The stress–strain curve shown in Fig. 6 indicates the brittle
nature of failure. The staircase pattern shows that force per unit
area has reached a value at which material continues to deform.
After that it increases without causing significant deformation.
This pattern is repeated in regular steps until the part fractures.
It can be concluded that failure will start at weakest raster result-
ing in increase in stress on surviving rasters and as the load is fur-
ther increased next weak raster will break and so forth. Thus, to
offer resistance against the failure rasters must be strong.
6.2. Response surface analysis for flexural strength

6. Discussions From response surface plots shown in Fig. 7, it can be observed

that effect of orientation (B), raster angle (C), raster width (D) and
Response surface plots for interaction terms are given in Figs. 3, air gap (E) on the flexural strength is similar to what is observed for
7 and 10 for TS, FS and IS, respectively.

6.1. Response surface analysis for tensile strength

From response surfaces (Fig. 3, T1, T2, and T3), it can be noted
that tensile strength first decreases and then increases as layer
thickness (A) increases. The weak interlayer bonding is responsible
for decrease in strength because distortion occurs due to high tem-
perature gradient towards the bottom layers. As the layer thickness
increases, less number of layers will be required and distortion ef-
fect is minimized and hence, strength increases [15,16]. Similarly,
number of layers increases with orientation (B) and hence, distor-
tion phenomenon dominates resulting in decrease in strength
(Fig. 3, T4, T5). But for small value of orientation decrease in
strength is relatively small. Strength increases with the increase
of raster angle (C) (Fig. 3, T1, T4, T6 and T7) because higher raster
angles produce smaller rasters which are subjected to less distor-
tion [15,17]. From Fig. 3 (T2, T6 and T8), it can be corroborated that
effect observed in case of increase in raster length is also seen with Fig. 5. SEM image of tensile failure of specimen (the surfaces of the test part were
increase in raster width. It is expected that small air gap helps to examined by scanning electron microscope (SEM) JEOL JSM-6480LV in the LV
mode).
create strong bond between two rasters and thus, improves
strength. But, small air gap restricts heat dissipation; thus in-
creases chance of stress accumulation. Positive air gap causes flow
of material towards the adjacent layers through the gap and in-
creases bonding surfaces (Fig. 4). Therefore, strength improves
with air gap (Fig. 3, T3 and T5). It is to be noted from Fig. 4 that
gap is present after two rasters and not between each rasters.
SEM image of fracture surface (Fig. 5) shows that failure is
caused because of pulling and rupturing of rasters and material

Fig. 4. SEM image of part showing raster bonding (the surfaces of the test part were
examined by scanning electron microscope (SEM) JEOL JSM-6480LV in the LV
mode). Fig. 6. Stress–strain curve for tensile strength.
 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295 293

Fig. 7. Response surface for flexural strength.

the case of tensile strength (Fig. 3). The reasons discussed for ten-
sile strength behaviour can be extended here. Flexural strength in-
creases at lower values of raster angle (Fig. 7, F1) and air gap (Fig. 7,
F3) as layer thickness (A) increases and shows opposite trend at the
higher value of raster angle and air gap. As observed (Fig. 7, F1)
maximum strength will be at minimum layer thickness and higher
raster angle. It seems strong bonding due to high temperature gra-
dient towards the bottom layers influences more on the flexural
strength and reduction in distortion of rasters also contributes to
some extent. At zero degree orientation, rasters will offer more
resistance to bending because they are parallel to bending plane
as length is more. When raster orientation increases, their inclina-
tion with respect to plane of bending changes producing rasters of
smaller length and net effect is decrease in resistance. It seems that
interaction of these two effects results in increase in strength as
layer thickness increase at low value of raster angle and decrease
in strength at high value of raster angle. Similarly, positive air
gap increases the heat dissipation and thus results in higher Fig. 8. Crack surface of flexural specimen (the surfaces of the test part were
strength at lower layer thickness (Fig. 7, F3). Response surface be- examined by scanning electron microscope (SEM) JEOL JSM-6480LV in the LV
tween layer thickness and raster width shows that strength de- mode).
creases on increasing layer thickness at any fixed value of raster
width. This may be due to reduction in bonding strength of bottom increases the heat conduction towards bottom layers resulting in
layer rasters and also it is easy to bend thin rasters as well as thick increase in the temperature at bonding interface and hence, proper
rasters which are distorted due to excess heat input. diffusion takes place between adjacent rasters. Thus, strength in-
Examination of fracture specimen reveals that failure starts at creases on increasing the orientation. But this has some adverse ef-
tensile side but pieces are held together by unbroken fibers of com- fect in causing increase in interlayer distortion and therefore,
pression side and also crack propagation along load direction is al- strength decreases after certain value of orientation. At higher va-
most straight for specimen built at zero degree of orientation lue of raster width (Fig. 10, K1), strength increases with the in-
(Fig. 8). Stress–strain curve for flexural strength shown in Fig. 9 crease in orientation. This may be due to the fact that thicker
show the staircase pattern indicating breaking of individual rasters offer more resistance to impact blow. Also excess heat input
rasters. by thick rasters results in strong bonding between rasters; thus
high strength. SEM image of fracture surface for impact specimen
6.3. Response surface analysis for impact strength is shown in Fig. 11 indicates failure by sudden rupture of rasters.

The response surface of impact strength versus orientation (B) 7. Optimization of process parameters
and raster width (D) shows that strength increases and then de-
creases at lower value of raster width. Increase in orientation Above discussion shows that FDM process involves large num-
causes increase in number of layers. Increase in number of layers ber of conflicting factors and complex part building phenomena
294 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295

Fig. 11. Fracture surface of impact specimen (the surfaces of the test part were
examined by scanning electron microscope (SEM) JEOL JSM-6480LV in the LV
mode).

making it difficult to predict the output characteristics based on

simple analysis of factor variation. Hence, to determine the optimal
setting of process parameters that will maximize the tensile
strength, flexural strength and impact strength, respectively, desir-
ability function (DF) given by Eq. (7) is used.

!1 Pn
wi
Y
n
wi i¼1
Fig. 9. Stress–strain curve for flexural strength. DF ¼ di ð7Þ
i¼1

where di is the desirability defined for the ith targeted output. For a
goal to find a maximum, di is calculated as shown in
di ¼ 0 if Y i  lowi
 
Y i  lowi
di ¼ if lowi < Y i < Highi ð8Þ
Highi  lowi
di ¼ 1 if Y i  Highi
where Yi is the found value of the ith output during optimization
process, and the lowi, Highi are the minimum and maximum values,
respectively of the experimental data for the ith output. Since all the
strengths are equally important therefore value of weight wi is ta-
ken as 1.Optimum factor levels that will maximize the desirability
function are calculated and are given in Table 5 for respective
strength together with its predicted value. The combine desirability
Fig. 10. Response surface for impact strength.
function when each response is maximized simultaneously to-
gether with optimum factor levels is given in Table 6.

Table 5
Optimum factor levels and predicted response for individual strength.

Response Goal Low High wi Factor level (coded units) Predicted response DF
Tensile strength Maximum 9.1229 18.0913 1 A = 1; B = 1; C = 1; D = 1; E = 1 18.0986 1
Flexural strength Maximum 18.8296 39.2423 1 A = 1; B = 1; C = 1; D = 1; E = 1 40.0189 1
Impact strength Maximum 0.342708 0.482292 1 A = 1; B = 1; C = 1; D = 1; E = 1 0.48226 0.99979

Table 6
Optimum factor levels and predicted response for combine strength.

Response Goal Low High wi Factor level (coded units) Predicted di DF

response
Tensile strength Maximum 9.1229 18.0913 1 A = 1.00000, B = 0.99607, C = 1.00000, D = 1.0000, 17.9179 0.98066 0.92160
Flexural Maximum 18.8296 39.2423 1 E = 1.00000 37.7971 0.92920
strength
Impact strength Maximum 0.342708 0.482292 1 0.92787 0.85971
 A.K. Sood et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 287–295
8. Conclusions
Functional relationship between process parameters and
strength (tensile, flexural and impact) were determined using re-
sponse surface methodology. The process parameters considered
are layer thickness, orientation, raster angle, raster width and air
gap. The response surface plots involving interaction terms are
studied and the reasons behind the observed response can be sum-
marized as follows.
1. Number of layers in a part depends upon the layer thickness
and part orientation. If number of layers is more, it will result
in high temperature gradient towards the bottom of part. This
will increase the diffusion between adjacent rasters and
strength will improve. But high temperature gradient is also
responsible for distortion within the layers or between the lay-
ers. Moreover, increase in number of layers also increases the
number of heating and cooling cycles and thus residual stress
accumulation increases. This may results in distortion, inter-
layer cracking and part de-lamination or fabrication failure.
Hence, strength will reduce.
2. Small raster angles are not preferable as they will results in long
rasters which will increase the stress accumulation along the
direction of deposition resulting in more distortion and hence
weak bonding. But small raster angle also means that rasters
are inclined along the direction of loading and will offer more
resistance thus strength will improve.
3. Thick rasters results in stress accumulation along the width of
part and have a same effect as the long rasters. But this stress
accumulation results in high temperature near the boding sur-
faces which may improve the diffusion and may result in strong
bond formation.
4. Zero air gap will improve the diffusion between the adjacent
rasters but may also decreases the heat dissipation as well as
total bonding area.
Part build mechanism in FDM is a complex phenomenon. There-
fore, effect of various factors and their interactions can be observed
but difficult to assign exact reasons. However, some of the possible
reasons have been outlined. To summarize, it can be said that
reduction in distortion is necessary requirement for good strength.
Further, factor levels can not be selected independent of each other
because interactions play an important role. The desirability func-
tion concept have been used to determine optimal factor levels for
improving tensile, flexural and impact strength independently and
all three strengths simultaneously. Optimal factor setting for ten-
sile and flexural strength is same but it differs in factor levels of
orientation and raster angle for impact strength. As far as simulta-
neous optimization of three strengths is considered, the factor lev-
295
els are completely different from individual optimal factor setting.
The study can be extended to reduce void formation and distortion
and improve inter-laminar bonding. Also the residual plot shows
that error between the predicted values and experimental values
is normally distributed. With very small percentage of error be-
tween the predicted and actual values this study can also be ex-
tended in the direction of more complicated loading states, such
as fatigue and vibration analysis.
References
[1] Chua CK, Feng C, Lee CW, Ang GQ. Rapid investment casting: direct and
indirect approaches via model maker II. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2005;25:11–25.
[2] Upcraft S, Fletcher R. The rapid prototyping technologies. Rapid Prototyp J
2003;23(4):318–30.
[3] Mansour S, Hauge R. Impact of rapid manufacturing on design for
manufacturing for injection moulding. J Eng Manuf 2003;B217(4):453–61.
[4] Hopkinson N, Hagur RJM, Dickens PH. Rapid manufacturing: an industrial
revolution for the digital age. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2006.
[5] Bernarand A, Fischer A. New trends in rapid product development. CIRP
annals-Manuf Technol 2002;51(2):635–52.
[6] Levy GN, Schindel R, Kruth JP, Leuven KU. Rapid manufacturing and rapid
tooling with layer manufacturing (LM) technologies – State of the art and
future perspectives. CIRP annals-Manuf Technol 2003;52(2):589–609.
[7] Pilipović A, Raos P, Šercer M. Experimental analysis of properties of materials
for rapid prototyping. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2009;40:105–15.
[8] Pandey PM, Jain PK, Rao PVM. Effect of delay time on part strength in selective
laser Sintering. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2008. doi:10.1007/s00170-008-1682-
3.
[9] Chockalingama K, Jawahara N, Chandrasekarb U, Ramanathana KN.
Establishment of process model for part strength in stereolithography. J
Mater Process Technol 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.12.144.
[10] Vasudevarao B, Natarajan D P, Razdan A, Mark H. Sensitivity of RP surface
finish to process parameter variation. In: Proceedings of solid free form
fabrication. Austin, USA; 2000. p. 252–58.
[11] Es Said, Os Foyos J, Noorani R, Mandelson M, Marloth R, Pregger BA. Effect of
layer orientation on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples. Mater
Manuf Process 2000;15(1):107–22.
[12] Ahn SH, Montero M, Odell D, Roundy S, Wright PK. Anisotropic material
properties of fused deposition modelling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J
2002;8(4):248–57.
[13] Khan ZA, Lee BH, Abdullah J. Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for
production of flexible ABS object. J Mater Process Technol 2005;169:54–61.
[14] Lee CS, Kim SG, Kim HJ, Ahn SH. Measurement of anisotropic compressive
strength of rapid prototyping parts. J Mater Process Technol 2007;187–
188:630–7.
[15] Wang, Tian Ming, Xi Jun Tong, Jin Ye. A model research for prototype warp
deformation in the FDM process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2007;33(11–
12):1087–96.
[16] Bellehumeur CT, Gu P, Sun Q, Rizvi GM. Effect of processing conditions on the
bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyp J
2008;14(2):72–80.
[17] Chou K, Zhang Y. A parametric study of part distortion in fused deposition
modeling using three dimensional element analysis. J Eng Manuf 2008;222
(B):959–67.
[18] Stratasys. FDM vantage user guide version 1.1. Minnesota: Stratasys; 2004.
[19] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 5th ed. Singapore: John
Wiley & Sons Pvt. Ltd.; 2003.
[20] Noorani R. Rapid prototyping: principles and application. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons Pvt. Ltd.; 2006.